{
  "schema_version": "1.3",
  "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0004,M-0024,M-0017&hide=training",
  "data_generated": "2026-10-09",
  "definitions": {
    "methodology": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/methodology/",
    "readiness": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/readiness/",
    "filters": [
      {
        "id": "prover",
        "label": "Prover",
        "question": "How far can the party being checked be trusted?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "cooperative",
            "label": "Cooperative"
          },
          {
            "value": "semi-trusted",
            "label": "Semi-trusted"
          },
          {
            "value": "adversarial",
            "label": "Adversarial"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "Keeps mechanisms whose threat model holds against at least this prover. Adversarial is the strongest assumption.",
        "about": "The prover is the party being checked. Semi-trusted designs rely on part of its stack: usually the chip vendor's hardware root of trust, its firmware or counters, or its supply-chain records. Adversarial designs aim to hold even if it cheats wherever the checks allow, within their stated assumptions."
      },
      {
        "id": "onsite",
        "label": "Verifier devices on site",
        "question": "May the verifier install its own hardware at the prover's sites?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "no",
            "label": "Not allowed"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "\"Not allowed\" removes mechanisms that need a retrofit device, such as a network tap or a sealed sensor.",
        "about": "Some mechanisms need a device the verifier owns or trusts at the prover's facility, such as a network tap, a bandwidth limiter or a sealed sensor. Choose Not allowed when the setting rules that out. Inspectors are not covered."
      },
      {
        "id": "coop",
        "label": "Prover cooperation",
        "question": "How much must the prover take part?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "partial",
            "label": "Partial at most"
          },
          {
            "value": "none",
            "label": "Not required"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "\"Partial at most\" removes mechanisms that need the prover's active participation. \"Not required\" keeps only those that work without it.",
        "about": "Required: the prover takes part, for example by logging requests, producing proofs or opening records. Partial: some access, such as installing a device. Not required: works from outside, such as satellite imagery."
      },
      {
        "id": "chips",
        "label": "Chips",
        "question": "May the proposal depend on new chip designs?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "existing",
            "label": "Existing chips only"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "\"Existing chips only\" removes mechanisms that need changes to future chip designs.",
        "about": "New chip features take years to reach a deployed fleet and cover only chips made after they ship. Mechanisms that use shipping features, such as trusted execution environments or performance counters, stay."
      },
      {
        "id": "ready",
        "label": "Minimum development status",
        "question": "Development status",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "R1",
            "label": "Proposed"
          },
          {
            "value": "R2",
            "label": "Research demonstration"
          },
          {
            "value": "R3",
            "label": "Operational use"
          },
          {
            "value": "R4",
            "label": "Legacy independent-evaluation filter",
            "legacy": true
          }
        ],
        "rule": "Keeps mechanisms whose readiness level is at least this one.",
        "about": "A level describes the public evidence for a mechanism's stated use, not its cost or feasibility. R3 can still have open critical flaws."
      },
      {
        "id": "tested",
        "label": "Attack testing",
        "question": "How hard has each mechanism been attacked in public?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "analysis",
            "label": "Published analysis"
          },
          {
            "value": "red-teamed",
            "label": "Red-teamed"
          },
          {
            "value": "independent-red-team",
            "label": "Independent red-team"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "Keeps mechanisms whose strongest published attack testing is at least this.",
        "about": "The strongest published attempt to break the mechanism for its verification use: a security analysis, red-teaming by its developers or collaborators, or a red team independent of them."
      },
      {
        "id": "hide",
        "label": "Keep hidden from the verifier",
        "question": "What must the verifier never see?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "weights",
            "label": "Model weights"
          },
          {
            "value": "io",
            "label": "Inputs and outputs"
          },
          {
            "value": "training",
            "label": "Training data"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "Removes mechanisms that show the asset to the verifier. Conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note and needs checking against the privacy requirement.",
        "about": "Model weights: the checked model's parameters. Inputs and outputs: the requests a deployed model serves and its responses. Training data: what a model was trained on. Each mechanism's exposure is the editors' reading of its record: shown, depends on the design (kept, with a note), hidden, not involved, or unspecified for a selected implementation. Code and configuration are not covered yet."
      }
    ],
    "exposure": "For model weights, inputs and outputs, and training data. This is the editors' reading of each mechanism's record (its threat model, how it works and its limitations), not a field of the record. Shown: the verifier sees it. Depends: on the design or variant, or the verifier sees only samples. Hidden: the verifier sees only commitments, hashes, proofs or results. Not involved: the record does not handle it. Unspecified: the selected implementation has no asset-specific assessment here.",
    "claim_status": {
      "addressed": "A mechanism in the proposal is aimed at this claim and is not excluded by the filters.",
      "partly-addressed": "Only supporting mechanisms, or mechanisms aimed at it that the filters exclude.",
      "unaddressed": "No mechanism in the proposal addresses this claim."
    },
    "finding_classification": {
      "failure": {
        "label": "Known failures",
        "singular": "Known failure",
        "anchor": "known-flaws"
      },
      "scope-limitation": {
        "label": "Scope limitations",
        "singular": "Scope limitation",
        "anchor": "scope-limitations"
      },
      "open-question": {
        "label": "Open questions",
        "singular": "Open question",
        "anchor": "open-questions"
      }
    },
    "finding_scope": "Evidence scope describes where a finding was demonstrated; it does not establish applicability to every implementation in the mechanism family.",
    "claim_finding_scope": "open_critical_findings names active failures on the assessed records; open_critical_context names conditional family failures whose implementation applicability is unassessed.",
    "legacy_status": "The status field retains covered/partial/none for compatibility. It names claim links, never successful verification. Use claim_status and status_label for presentation."
  },
  "filters": {
    "prover": "",
    "onsite": "",
    "coop": "",
    "chips": "",
    "ready": "",
    "tested": "",
    "hide": [
      "training"
    ]
  },
  "mechanisms_passing_filters": 24,
  "claims": [],
  "mechanisms": [
    {
      "id": "M-0004",
      "title": "Zero-knowledge proofs of inference",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/zk-proofs-of-inference/",
      "assessment_record": {
        "id": "M-0004",
        "title": "Zero-knowledge proofs of inference",
        "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/zk-proofs-of-inference/"
      },
      "finding_counts": {
        "failure": 0,
        "scope_limitation": 4,
        "open_question": 0,
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 0,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "selected_implementation": null,
      "readiness": {
        "level": "R2",
        "scope": "proving a language model's output follows from committed weights, against a cheating prover",
        "confidence": "medium",
        "evidence": [
          "S-0023",
          "S-1108",
          "S-0021",
          "S-0068",
          "S-1101",
          "S-0024",
          "S-0070",
          "S-1807",
          "S-1808",
          "S-1112"
        ]
      },
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R2",
        "label": "Research demonstration",
        "short": "Research demo",
        "rank": 2,
        "legacy_code": "R2"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "independent-red-team",
          "label": "Published attack testing",
          "kind": "practical",
          "attribution": "Independent team"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 0,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "assessed_properties": {
        "threat_model": "adversarial",
        "hardware_requirement": "none",
        "prover_cooperation": "required",
        "adversarial_evaluation": "independent-red-team"
      },
      "claims": [],
      "exposure": {
        "weights": "hidden",
        "io": "shown",
        "training": "none",
        "note": "The weights stay committed and hidden; the verifier knows each input and output it checks."
      },
      "family_finding_context": [],
      "filter_issues": []
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0024",
      "title": "Bounding unexplained information in outputs",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bounding-unexplained-information/",
      "assessment_record": {
        "id": "M-0024",
        "title": "Bounding unexplained information in outputs",
        "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bounding-unexplained-information/"
      },
      "finding_counts": {
        "failure": 1,
        "scope_limitation": 2,
        "open_question": 1,
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 1,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "selected_implementation": null,
      "readiness": {
        "level": "R2",
        "scope": "bounding how much hidden information can leave in checked inference outputs",
        "confidence": "low",
        "evidence": [
          "S-0019",
          "S-0015",
          "S-1507"
        ]
      },
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R2",
        "label": "Research demonstration",
        "short": "Research demo",
        "rank": 2,
        "legacy_code": "R2"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "independent-red-team",
          "label": "Published attack testing",
          "kind": "practical",
          "attribution": "Independent team"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [
          {
            "n": 1,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1507",
              "S-0015"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 1,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "assessed_properties": {
        "threat_model": "adversarial",
        "hardware_requirement": "retrofit-device",
        "prover_cooperation": "required",
        "adversarial_evaluation": "independent-red-team"
      },
      "claims": [],
      "exposure": {
        "weights": "partial",
        "io": "partial",
        "training": "none",
        "note": "Depends on where recomputation runs: in a sealed enclosure, or with zero-knowledge proofs, the verifier need not see the weights or the traffic."
      },
      "family_finding_context": [],
      "filter_issues": []
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0017",
      "title": "Tamper evidence for verifier devices",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/",
      "assessment_record": {
        "id": "M-0017",
        "title": "Tamper evidence for verifier devices",
        "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/"
      },
      "finding_counts": {
        "failure": 2,
        "scope_limitation": 1,
        "open_question": 0,
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 2,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "selected_implementation": null,
      "readiness": {
        "level": "R2",
        "scope": "detecting probing of proposed verifier hardware, using server and electronics prototypes as evidence",
        "confidence": "medium",
        "evidence": [
          "S-0052",
          "S-1315",
          "S-0051",
          "S-0050",
          "S-3262",
          "S-1316",
          "S-0018"
        ]
      },
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R2",
        "label": "Research demonstration",
        "short": "Research demo",
        "rank": 2,
        "legacy_code": "R2"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "analysis",
          "label": "Published security analysis",
          "kind": "analysis"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [
          {
            "n": 1,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-1317",
              "S-1318"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 3,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-1315",
              "S-0052",
              "S-3261"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 2,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "assessed_properties": {
        "threat_model": "adversarial",
        "hardware_requirement": "retrofit-device",
        "prover_cooperation": "partial",
        "adversarial_evaluation": "analysis"
      },
      "claims": [],
      "exposure": {
        "weights": "none",
        "io": "none",
        "training": "none",
        "note": "Protects verifier devices; it does not handle model data."
      },
      "family_finding_context": [],
      "filter_issues": []
    }
  ],
  "strengths": {
    "covered": [],
    "production": [],
    "operationalUse": [],
    "adversarial": [
      "M-0004",
      "M-0024",
      "M-0017"
    ],
    "noNewHardware": [
      "M-0004"
    ],
    "mitigated": [],
    "notCounted": []
  },
  "properties": {
    "covered": [],
    "production": [],
    "operationalUse": [],
    "adversarial": [
      "M-0004",
      "M-0024",
      "M-0017"
    ],
    "noNewHardware": [
      "M-0004"
    ],
    "mitigated": [],
    "notCounted": []
  },
  "attack_testing": [
    {
      "id": "M-0004",
      "record": "M-0004",
      "evaluation": "independent-red-team",
      "in_setting": true
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0024",
      "record": "M-0024",
      "evaluation": "independent-red-team",
      "in_setting": true
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0017",
      "record": "M-0017",
      "evaluation": "analysis",
      "in_setting": true
    }
  ],
  "selected_implementations": {},
  "weaknesses": {
    "gaps": [],
    "excluded": [],
    "unlinked": [],
    "critical": [],
    "significant": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0024",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Prompt-controlled entropy inflation widens the covert channel",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Gumbel-based inference verification tolerates token choices that honest GPU nondeterminism could produce, and the size of that tolerated set grows with the model's output entropy. Kezins, an independent researcher, showed that an adversary who controls the prompt distribution can raise output entropy and roughly double the bits leaked per token. Across six models of 1 to 32 billion parameters, this cut the slowdown from 146–254 times under benign prompts to 60–118 times. Kezins argues that architectures built on the same unexplained-information bound inherit this attack surface, and recommends calibrating tolerances against local token entropy rather than benign traffic.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1507",
          "S-0015"
        ],
        "helps": [
          {
            "by": "M-0002",
            "how": "Bit-exact replay would remove the tolerance for numerical noise that sets the size of this channel. The record notes that it needs full hardware and software metadata."
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Seals are often defeated with simple methods",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
        "scope_note": "Published defeats of general security seals. They warn about proposed verifier-device seals, but do not demonstrate defeat of an AI verification enclosure or sensor.",
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "In 1996 a Los Alamos vulnerability assessment defeated all 94 security seals it examined, with 132 defeats in total, using rapid, inexpensive, low-tech methods. It found that seal cost did not predict security. In 2001 Johnston reported that high-tech seals are often easier to defeat than low-tech ones.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1317",
          "S-1318"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Attack classes outside published models",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "open-question",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
        "scope_note": "The radio compensation result is emulated using measured channel data under a known-reference attacker model. It is not a physical bypass demonstration against an AI verifier enclosure.",
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "The authors of the batteryless cover say they cannot assess chemical-solvent attacks, which exceed their expertise, and deem cover removal impractical. Anti-Tamper Radio's reference can drift as the environment or measurement system ages; the authors suggest gradually renewing the reference. A 2025 follow-up by some of the same authors shows, by emulation on measured channel data, that an attacker who knows the reference channel and the needle's effect on it could inject a signal that cancels the change caused by a needle insertion. It proposes a reconfigurable intelligent surface that randomizes the channel as a countermeasure.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1315",
          "S-0052",
          "S-3261"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "criticalMechanisms": [],
    "significantMechanisms": [
      "M-0024",
      "M-0017"
    ],
    "familyContext": [],
    "scopeLimitations": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0004",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "The proof covers a fixed-point approximation, not the floating-point model",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "open-question",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Current ZK inference systems prove a quantised version of the network. zkLLM scales values by 2^16 and reports small perplexity changes. Attestable reports quantising matrix multiplications to 8-bit integers while proving other operations in floating point. A verifier therefore learns about the proof-friendly variant, and must separately accept that this variant is the declared model. Trail of Bits built a ResNet-18 backdoor that is dormant in the full-precision model and active after ezkl's quantisation; whether it persists through proving was left for further investigation. A verification system design notes that ZKPs can emulate floating-point operations. Rounding makes floating-point results depend on summation order, so bit-for-bit replay of an accelerator's results needs its original reduction tree. The report calls emulating that tree inside a ZKP an open, intricate problem and asks what it would cost.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0023",
          "S-1101",
          "S-0070",
          "S-0018"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0004",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "A proof speaks only for the computations that were proven",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Attestable writes that \"a proof of some computation is not a proof of all computation\", and that a proof cannot discover a datacenter that was never declared. Proofs of inference do not by themselves show that no other workload ran on the same or other hardware.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1102"
        ],
        "helps": [
          {
            "by": "M-0007",
            "how": "The record names proof-of-work accounting as the kind of compute accounting needed to show that proven inference was the only work done."
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0004",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "The model architecture is disclosed",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "minor",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "ZKML \"requires that the model architecture (but not weights) is revealed\", and zkLLM assumes a publicly known model structure. Architecture can be commercially sensitive.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0021",
          "S-0023"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0004",
        "n": 4,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Proofs do not bind computational effort (Hollow-LLM)",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Researchers at the University of Southern California show that a proof of inference certifies that an output is consistent with committed weights under the declared architecture, but not how much computation produced it. In their Hollow-LLM attack, a provider keeps the declared architecture and parameter count but commits to \"ghost weights\". Some layers pass their inputs through unchanged, and wide layers carry the signal in a small subspace, so a much smaller inner model does the real work. The ghost weights satisfy the verification circuit and yield valid proofs.\nThe authors ran the attack with the proof procedure of zkGPT, a separate ZK inference system, on a 6-layer, 512-dimensional transformer declared as up to 12 layers and 1,024 dimensions. Outputs were identical to the inner model's, and serving cost stayed at the inner model's level. An honest model of the declared size cost 2.4 times as much to prefill and 3.1 times as much to decode. Proving cost still grew with the declared architecture.\nThe authors note that results may be served before any proof, with the provider building the witness only when a call is selected for audit. They describe their constructions as \"compatible with state-of-the-art zkLLM pipelines\", and state that the attack does not imply a flaw in the proof system itself. They propose challenge-based audits and ablation tests, which raise the cost of cheating but give no guarantee.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1112"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0024",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Information the declared computation explains is not bounded",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "The bound limits unexplained bits only. Outputs that the declared computation fully explains can still carry valuable information: a compression study notes that an adversary with inference access can extract more proprietary information per bit than naive transmission allows.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1508",
          "S-0019"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0024",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Channels other than checked outputs are outside the bound",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "The inference-verification scheme treats side channels as out of scope. A low-trust system design argues that suppressing physical covert bandwidth below kilobits per second is much more achievable than aiming for zero, and that a malicious device can leak one bit of information by deliberately outputting a wrong result.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0015",
          "S-0018"
        ],
        "helps": [
          {
            "by": "M-0022",
            "how": "Physical side channels need separate suppression, which is this mechanism's purpose."
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Security depends on inspection protocols",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
        "scope_note": "An inspection and protocol requirement drawn from safeguards and enclosure studies, not a reported break of a deployed AI verifier.",
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Johnston argues that a seal is no better than the protocols for using it, and that inspectors are usually given little useful information on how to detect tampering. The Sandia survey notes that larger enclosures are hard to inspect fully and that sensor data must be authenticated.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1318",
          "S-1316"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "openQuestions": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0024",
        "n": 4,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "The facility-level design is untested",
        "classification": "open-question",
        "kind": "open-question",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "The compute-verification architecture is described with protocol details, potential attacks and prototyping plans, but no prototype results have been published.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0019"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "minor": 0,
    "minorFindings": [],
    "minorBy": [],
    "notDemonstrated": [],
    "newChip": []
  },
  "findings": [
    {
      "mech": "M-0004",
      "record": "M-0004",
      "n": 1,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "The proof covers a fixed-point approximation, not the floating-point model",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "open-question",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "Current ZK inference systems prove a quantised version of the network. zkLLM scales values by 2^16 and reports small perplexity changes. Attestable reports quantising matrix multiplications to 8-bit integers while proving other operations in floating point. A verifier therefore learns about the proof-friendly variant, and must separately accept that this variant is the declared model. Trail of Bits built a ResNet-18 backdoor that is dormant in the full-precision model and active after ezkl's quantisation; whether it persists through proving was left for further investigation. A verification system design notes that ZKPs can emulate floating-point operations. Rounding makes floating-point results depend on summation order, so bit-for-bit replay of an accelerator's results needs its original reduction tree. The report calls emulating that tree inside a ZKP an open, intricate problem and asks what it would cost.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-0023",
        "S-1101",
        "S-0070",
        "S-0018"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0004",
      "record": "M-0004",
      "n": 2,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "A proof speaks only for the computations that were proven",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "Attestable writes that \"a proof of some computation is not a proof of all computation\", and that a proof cannot discover a datacenter that was never declared. Proofs of inference do not by themselves show that no other workload ran on the same or other hardware.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1102"
      ],
      "helps": [
        {
          "by": "M-0007",
          "how": "The record names proof-of-work accounting as the kind of compute accounting needed to show that proven inference was the only work done."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0004",
      "record": "M-0004",
      "n": 3,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "The model architecture is disclosed",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "minor",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "ZKML \"requires that the model architecture (but not weights) is revealed\", and zkLLM assumes a publicly known model structure. Architecture can be commercially sensitive.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-0021",
        "S-0023"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0004",
      "record": "M-0004",
      "n": 4,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Proofs do not bind computational effort (Hollow-LLM)",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "Researchers at the University of Southern California show that a proof of inference certifies that an output is consistent with committed weights under the declared architecture, but not how much computation produced it. In their Hollow-LLM attack, a provider keeps the declared architecture and parameter count but commits to \"ghost weights\". Some layers pass their inputs through unchanged, and wide layers carry the signal in a small subspace, so a much smaller inner model does the real work. The ghost weights satisfy the verification circuit and yield valid proofs.\nThe authors ran the attack with the proof procedure of zkGPT, a separate ZK inference system, on a 6-layer, 512-dimensional transformer declared as up to 12 layers and 1,024 dimensions. Outputs were identical to the inner model's, and serving cost stayed at the inner model's level. An honest model of the declared size cost 2.4 times as much to prefill and 3.1 times as much to decode. Proving cost still grew with the declared architecture.\nThe authors note that results may be served before any proof, with the provider building the witness only when a call is selected for audit. They describe their constructions as \"compatible with state-of-the-art zkLLM pipelines\", and state that the attack does not imply a flaw in the proof system itself. They propose challenge-based audits and ablation tests, which raise the cost of cheating but give no guarantee.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1112"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0024",
      "record": "M-0024",
      "n": 1,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Prompt-controlled entropy inflation widens the covert channel",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "Gumbel-based inference verification tolerates token choices that honest GPU nondeterminism could produce, and the size of that tolerated set grows with the model's output entropy. Kezins, an independent researcher, showed that an adversary who controls the prompt distribution can raise output entropy and roughly double the bits leaked per token. Across six models of 1 to 32 billion parameters, this cut the slowdown from 146–254 times under benign prompts to 60–118 times. Kezins argues that architectures built on the same unexplained-information bound inherit this attack surface, and recommends calibrating tolerances against local token entropy rather than benign traffic.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1507",
        "S-0015"
      ],
      "helps": [
        {
          "by": "M-0002",
          "how": "Bit-exact replay would remove the tolerance for numerical noise that sets the size of this channel. The record notes that it needs full hardware and software metadata."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0024",
      "record": "M-0024",
      "n": 2,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Information the declared computation explains is not bounded",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "The bound limits unexplained bits only. Outputs that the declared computation fully explains can still carry valuable information: a compression study notes that an adversary with inference access can extract more proprietary information per bit than naive transmission allows.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1508",
        "S-0019"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0024",
      "record": "M-0024",
      "n": 3,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Channels other than checked outputs are outside the bound",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "The inference-verification scheme treats side channels as out of scope. A low-trust system design argues that suppressing physical covert bandwidth below kilobits per second is much more achievable than aiming for zero, and that a malicious device can leak one bit of information by deliberately outputting a wrong result.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-0015",
        "S-0018"
      ],
      "helps": [
        {
          "by": "M-0022",
          "how": "Physical side channels need separate suppression, which is this mechanism's purpose."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0024",
      "record": "M-0024",
      "n": 4,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "The facility-level design is untested",
      "classification": "open-question",
      "kind": "open-question",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "The compute-verification architecture is described with protocol details, potential attacks and prototyping plans, but no prototype results have been published.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-0019"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0017",
      "record": "M-0017",
      "n": 1,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Seals are often defeated with simple methods",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
      "scope_note": "Published defeats of general security seals. They warn about proposed verifier-device seals, but do not demonstrate defeat of an AI verification enclosure or sensor.",
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "In 1996 a Los Alamos vulnerability assessment defeated all 94 security seals it examined, with 132 defeats in total, using rapid, inexpensive, low-tech methods. It found that seal cost did not predict security. In 2001 Johnston reported that high-tech seals are often easier to defeat than low-tech ones.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1317",
        "S-1318"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0017",
      "record": "M-0017",
      "n": 2,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Security depends on inspection protocols",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
      "scope_note": "An inspection and protocol requirement drawn from safeguards and enclosure studies, not a reported break of a deployed AI verifier.",
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "Johnston argues that a seal is no better than the protocols for using it, and that inspectors are usually given little useful information on how to detect tampering. The Sandia survey notes that larger enclosures are hard to inspect fully and that sensor data must be authenticated.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1318",
        "S-1316"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0017",
      "record": "M-0017",
      "n": 3,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Attack classes outside published models",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "open-question",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
      "scope_note": "The radio compensation result is emulated using measured channel data under a known-reference attacker model. It is not a physical bypass demonstration against an AI verifier enclosure.",
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "The authors of the batteryless cover say they cannot assess chemical-solvent attacks, which exceed their expertise, and deem cover removal impractical. Anti-Tamper Radio's reference can drift as the environment or measurement system ages; the authors suggest gradually renewing the reference. A 2025 follow-up by some of the same authors shows, by emulation on measured channel data, that an attacker who knows the reference channel and the needle's effect on it could inject a signal that cancels the change caused by a needle insertion. It proposes a reconfigurable intelligent surface that randomizes the channel as a countermeasure.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1315",
        "S-0052",
        "S-3261"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "possible_additions": [
    {
      "id": "M-0002",
      "title": "Deterministic and bit-exact inference",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/deterministic-inference/",
      "readiness": "R3",
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R3",
        "label": "Operational use",
        "short": "Operational use",
        "rank": 3,
        "legacy_code": "R3"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "analysis",
          "label": "Published security analysis",
          "kind": "analysis"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 0,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "fits_filters": true,
      "filter_issues": [],
      "reasons": [
        {
          "kind": "flaw",
          "mech": "M-0024",
          "n": 1,
          "title": "Prompt-controlled entropy inflation widens the covert channel",
          "severity": "significant",
          "how": "Bit-exact replay would remove the tolerance for numerical noise that sets the size of this channel. The record notes that it needs full hardware and software metadata."
        },
        {
          "kind": "blocker",
          "mech": "M-0024",
          "text": "Tolerance for numerical nondeterminism sets the size of the residual channel; bit-exact replay would remove it but needs full hardware and software metadata."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0014",
      "title": "Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/",
      "readiness": "R2",
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R2",
        "label": "Research demonstration",
        "short": "Research demo",
        "rank": 2,
        "legacy_code": "R2"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "analysis",
          "label": "Published security analysis",
          "kind": "analysis"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [
          {
            "n": 2,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1301"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 5,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1313"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 2,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "fits_filters": true,
      "filter_issues": [],
      "reasons": [
        {
          "kind": "blocker",
          "mech": "M-0024",
          "text": "The prover's compute must be isolated so that all traffic passes through the verifier's interlock; any unmonitored path voids the bound."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0007",
      "title": "Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/proofs-of-useful-work/",
      "readiness": "R1",
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R1",
        "label": "Proposed",
        "short": "Proposed",
        "rank": 1,
        "legacy_code": "R1"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "analysis",
          "label": "Published security analysis",
          "kind": "analysis"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [
          {
            "n": 3,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1105"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 1,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "fits_filters": true,
      "filter_issues": [],
      "reasons": [
        {
          "kind": "blocker",
          "mech": "M-0004",
          "text": "Showing that proven inference was the only work done needs a compute-accounting mechanism such as proof-of-work accounting, which is only proposed."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0022",
      "title": "Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/",
      "readiness": "R1",
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R1",
        "label": "Proposed",
        "short": "Proposed",
        "rank": 1,
        "legacy_code": "R1"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "analysis",
          "label": "Published security analysis",
          "kind": "analysis"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 0,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "fits_filters": true,
      "filter_issues": [],
      "reasons": [
        {
          "kind": "blocker",
          "mech": "M-0024",
          "text": "Physical side channels need separate suppression, and one design treats a low residual bandwidth, rather than zero, as the realistic target."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0001",
      "title": "Sampled inference recomputation",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/sampled-inference-recomputation/",
      "readiness": "R3",
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R3",
        "label": "Operational use",
        "short": "Operational use",
        "rank": 3,
        "legacy_code": "R3"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "analysis",
          "label": "Published security analysis",
          "kind": "analysis"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [
          {
            "n": 1,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-0020",
              "S-0015",
              "S-1507"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 3,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1000",
              "S-0016"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 4,
            "severity": "minor",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-0016"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 2,
          "minor": 1
        }
      },
      "fits_filters": true,
      "filter_issues": [],
      "reasons": [
        {
          "kind": "prerequisite",
          "mech": "M-0024"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0013",
      "title": "Network taps and certifiers",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/",
      "readiness": "R1",
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R1",
        "label": "Proposed",
        "short": "Proposed",
        "rank": 1,
        "legacy_code": "R1"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "analysis",
          "label": "Published security analysis",
          "kind": "analysis"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [
          {
            "n": 1,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1300",
              "S-1507"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 4,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1312"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 6,
            "severity": "minor",
            "status": "mitigated",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1300"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 2,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "fits_filters": true,
      "filter_issues": [],
      "reasons": [
        {
          "kind": "prerequisite",
          "mech": "M-0024"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "goal": null,
  "design": null,
  "dependencies": {
    "prerequisites": [
      {
        "id": "M-0001",
        "neededBy": [
          "M-0024"
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "M-0014",
        "neededBy": [
          "M-0024"
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "M-0022",
        "neededBy": [
          "M-0024"
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "M-0013",
        "neededBy": [
          "M-0024"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "shared": [],
    "blockers": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0004",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Proving takes about 13 minutes (803 seconds) per 2,048-token forward pass of a 13B model on one A100, and a verification system design calls the overhead heavy.",
        "theme": "performance-compatibility",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0023",
          "S-0018"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0004",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "ZKML and zkLLM prove fixed-point arithmetic, and a verification system design calls emulating an accelerator's original floating-point reduction tree inside a zero-knowledge proof, which bit-for-bit replay needs, an open and intricate problem whose cost is also unsettled.",
        "theme": "performance-compatibility",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0021",
          "S-0023",
          "S-0018"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0004",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "zkLLM's code is unaudited, interactive and archived; the one audited ZK inference library, ezkl, had high-severity circuit soundness bugs before its fixes.",
        "theme": "adversarial-validation",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1108",
          "S-0070"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0004",
        "n": 4,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Showing that proven inference was the only work done needs a compute-accounting mechanism such as proof-of-work accounting, which is only proposed.",
        "theme": "coverage-hidden-compute",
        "blocked_by": "M-0007",
        "sources": [
          "S-1102"
        ],
        "inProposal": false
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0024",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "The prover's compute must be isolated so that all traffic passes through the verifier's interlock; any unmonitored path voids the bound.",
        "theme": "coverage-hidden-compute",
        "blocked_by": "M-0014",
        "sources": [
          "S-0019"
        ],
        "inProposal": false
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0024",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Physical side channels need separate suppression, and one design treats a low residual bandwidth, rather than zero, as the realistic target.",
        "theme": "coverage-hidden-compute",
        "blocked_by": "M-0022",
        "sources": [
          "S-0018",
          "S-0015"
        ],
        "inProposal": false
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0024",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Tolerance for numerical nondeterminism sets the size of the residual channel; bit-exact replay would remove it but needs full hardware and software metadata.",
        "theme": "protocol-soundness",
        "blocked_by": "M-0002",
        "sources": [
          "S-1507",
          "S-0018"
        ],
        "inProposal": false
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0024",
        "n": 4,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Recomputation over confidential weights and inputs needs a protected setting: prover recomputation in a verifier-controlled enclosure, verifier recomputation in a prover-controlled enclosure, or zero-knowledge proofs.",
        "theme": "privacy-leakage",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0019"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0024",
        "n": 5,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "No prototype of the facility-level architecture exists to red-team.",
        "theme": "adversarial-validation",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0019"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "No tamper-evident enclosure has been designed for AI verifier hardware at retrofit scale.",
        "theme": "hardware-trust",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0018"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Battery-backed designs add bulk, limit operating temperature (+10 °C to +35 °C for the IBM 4765) and complicate transport.",
        "theme": "performance-compatibility",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1315"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Active monitoring needs power, and visual inspection of large enclosures faces access limits.",
        "theme": "access-governance",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1316"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 4,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "No evaluation has been published in the AI verification setting.",
        "theme": "adversarial-validation",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0018"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      }
    ]
  },
  "exposure": {
    "weights": {
      "shown": [],
      "partial": [
        "M-0024"
      ],
      "hidden": [
        "M-0004"
      ],
      "none": [
        "M-0017"
      ],
      "unknown": []
    },
    "io": {
      "shown": [
        "M-0004"
      ],
      "partial": [
        "M-0024"
      ],
      "hidden": [],
      "none": [
        "M-0017"
      ],
      "unknown": []
    },
    "training": {
      "shown": [],
      "partial": [],
      "hidden": [],
      "none": [
        "M-0004",
        "M-0024",
        "M-0017"
      ],
      "unknown": []
    }
  },
  "implementations": [
    {
      "mechanism": "M-0004",
      "selected": null,
      "implementations": [
        {
          "id": "I-0005",
          "title": "Attestable zero-knowledge inference prover",
          "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/attestable-zk-inference/"
        },
        {
          "id": "I-0014",
          "title": "EZKL",
          "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ezkl/"
        },
        {
          "id": "I-0012",
          "title": "Low-trust AI compute verification system overview",
          "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/"
        },
        {
          "id": "I-0003",
          "title": "zkLLM",
          "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/zkllm/"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "M-0024",
      "selected": null,
      "implementations": []
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "M-0017",
      "selected": null,
      "implementations": [
        {
          "id": "I-0011",
          "title": "AI 2040 inference-only verification stack",
          "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "S-0023",
      "title": "zkLLM: Zero Knowledge Proofs for Large Language Models",
      "authors": "H. Sun et al.",
      "year": 2024,
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1145/3658644.3670334",
      "path": "/sources/sun-zkllm/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1108",
      "title": "zkllm-ccs2024: code for zkLLM: Zero Knowledge Proofs for Large Language Models",
      "authors": "H. Sun",
      "year": 2024,
      "url": "https://github.com/jvhs0706/zkllm-ccs2024",
      "path": "/sources/sun-zkllm-code/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0021",
      "title": "ZKML: An Optimizing System for ML Inference in Zero-Knowledge Proofs",
      "authors": "B.-J. Chen et al.",
      "year": 2024,
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1145/3627703.3650088",
      "path": "/sources/chen-zkml/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0068",
      "title": "NanoZK: Privacy-Preserving Verifiable Inference for Large Language Models via Layerwise Zero-Knowledge Proofs",
      "authors": "Z. Wang",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18046",
      "path": "/sources/wang-nanozk/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1101",
      "title": "Proving LLMs at Scale",
      "authors": "Attestable",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://attestable.com/blog/proving-llms-scale",
      "path": "/sources/attestable-proving-llms-at-scale/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0024",
      "title": "Verifiable evaluations of machine learning models using zkSNARKs",
      "authors": "T. South et al.",
      "year": 2024,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.02675",
      "path": "/sources/south-verifiable-evaluations-zksnarks/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0070",
      "title": "Zkonduit EZKL Security Assessment",
      "authors": "F. Casal et al.",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://github.com/trailofbits/publications/blob/master/reviews/2025-03-zkonduit-ezkl-securityreview.pdf",
      "path": "/sources/trailofbits-ezkl-security-assessment/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1807",
      "title": "DeepProve-1: The First zkML System to Prove a Full LLM Inference",
      "authors": "Lagrange Labs",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://lagrange.dev/blog/deepprove-1",
      "path": "/sources/lagrange-deepprove-1/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1808",
      "title": "Lagrange-Labs/deep-prove (GitHub repository)",
      "authors": "Lagrange Labs",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://github.com/Lagrange-Labs/deep-prove",
      "path": "/sources/lagrange-deep-prove-code/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1112",
      "title": "Hollow-LLM Attack: Computationally Trivial Weights in Zero-Knowledge Verification of LLM Inference",
      "authors": "C. Gong et al.",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28884",
      "path": "/sources/gong-hollow-llm-attack/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0018",
      "title": "A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification",
      "authors": "N. Cankaya",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/A-system-overview-for-near-term-low-trust-AI-compute-verification.pdf",
      "path": "/sources/cankaya-system-overview-low-trust-compute-verification/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1102",
      "title": "Pacing AI Requires Proof",
      "authors": "Attestable",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://attestable.com/blog/pacing-ai-requires-proof",
      "path": "/sources/attestable-pacing-ai-requires-proof/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0019",
      "title": "Verifying AI Compute by Bounding Unexplained Information Exfiltration",
      "authors": "J. Petrie & Y. Mühlhäuser",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://openreview.net/forum?id=qtgG5HZSsk",
      "path": "/sources/petrie-bounding-unexplained-information-exfiltration/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0015",
      "title": "Verifying LLM Inference to Detect Model Weight Exfiltration",
      "authors": "R. Rinberg et al.",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02620",
      "path": "/sources/rinberg-verifying-llm-inference-weight-exfiltration/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1507",
      "title": "Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification",
      "authors": "N. Kezins",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23375",
      "path": "/sources/kezins-adversarial-entropy-inflation/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1508",
      "title": "Haiku to Opus in Just 10 bits: LLMs Unlock Large Compression Gains",
      "authors": "R. Rinberg et al.",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02343",
      "path": "/sources/rinberg-haiku-to-opus-compression/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0052",
      "title": "Anti-Tamper Radio: System-Level Tamper Detection for Computing Systems",
      "authors": "P. Staat et al.",
      "year": 2022,
      "url": "https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9833631/",
      "path": "/sources/staat-anti-tamper-radio/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1315",
      "title": "Secure Physical Enclosures from Covers with Tamper-Resistance",
      "authors": "V. Immler et al.",
      "year": 2019,
      "url": "https://tches.iacr.org/index.php/TCHES/article/view/7334",
      "path": "/sources/immler-secure-physical-enclosures-covers/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0051",
      "title": "ImpedanceVerif: On-Chip Impedance Sensing for System-Level Tampering Detection",
      "authors": "T. Mosavirik et al.",
      "year": 2023,
      "url": "https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/946",
      "path": "/sources/mosavirik-impedanceverif/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0050",
      "title": "IBM 4765 Cryptographic Coprocessor Security Module: Security Policy",
      "authors": "IBM Corporation",
      "year": 2012,
      "url": "https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp1505.pdf",
      "path": "/sources/ibm-4765-security-policy/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-3262",
      "title": "PHYSEC SEAL: Change detection for maximum safety",
      "authors": "PHYSEC GmbH",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://www.physec.de/en/solutions/physec-seal/",
      "path": "/sources/physec-seal/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1316",
      "title": "Tamper-Indicating Enclosures, A Current Survey",
      "authors": "H. A. Smartt & Z. N. Gastelum",
      "year": 2015,
      "url": "https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1256541",
      "path": "/sources/smartt-tamper-indicating-enclosures-survey/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1317",
      "title": "Physical Security and Tamper-Indicating Devices",
      "authors": "R. G. Johnston & A. R. E. Garcia",
      "year": 1996,
      "url": "https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/459707",
      "path": "/sources/johnston-physical-security-tamper-indicating-devices/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1318",
      "title": "Tamper Detection for Safeguards and Treaty Monitoring: Fantasies, Realities, and Potentials",
      "authors": "R. G. Johnston",
      "year": 2001,
      "url": "https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/81john.pdf",
      "path": "/sources/johnston-tamper-detection-safeguards-treaty-monitoring/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-3261",
      "title": "Anti-Tamper Radio Meets Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface for System-Level Tamper Detection",
      "authors": "M. S. Tabar et al.",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14279",
      "path": "/sources/tabar-anti-tamper-radio-ris/"
    }
  ]
}