# AI verification proposal

A proposal built with the Proposal Explorer of the AI Verification Tech Map (https://trustbutveri.fyi/), from its records of 2026-10-09. Interactive version: https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0004,M-0013,M-0020&hide=io

How to read it: a claim is something one party wants to verify about another's AI hardware or software. A mechanism is a general technique for verifying claims; it is "aimed at" a claim when that is its direct purpose, and "supporting" when it contributes without being aimed at it. A claim is addressed when a mechanism in the proposal is aimed at it and is not excluded by the filters; addressed does not mean verified, so check that mechanism's development status, security evidence and findings. Definitions: https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/methodology/ (roles, properties and findings) and https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/readiness/ (development status).

## Filters

Filters apply to mechanisms only and describe the setting the proposal is for.

- **Keep hidden from the verifier: inputs and outputs.** Removes mechanisms that show the asset to the verifier. Conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note and needs checking against the privacy requirement. 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.

24 of 25 mechanisms on the map pass these filters.

## Overview

One row per mechanism, read from its record. Open failures: critical / significant / minor. The last three columns are the editors' reading of what the verifier sees. Findings are grouped as known failures, scope limitations and open questions. Only known failures count as failures. Counts are an inventory of published findings, not a risk score.

| Mechanism | Development | Security evidence | Prover | Attack testing | Hardware | Open failures | Weights | Inputs and outputs | Training data |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Zero-knowledge proofs of inference (excluded by the filters) | Research demonstration | Published attack testing | Adversarial | Independent red-team | None | 0 / 0 / 0 | hidden | shown | not involved |
| Network taps and certifiers | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 2 / 0 | depends | depends | depends |
| Remote detection of data centres | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | None | 0 / 0 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### Zero-knowledge proofs of inference

A prover produces a cryptographic proof that an output came from running a committed model on a given input, without revealing the weights. ([Zero-knowledge proofs of inference](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/zk-proofs-of-inference/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for proving a language model's output follows from committed weights, against a cheating prover.
- Security evidence: Published attack testing. Independent evaluation: unassessed. Formal proof: unassessed. Deployment assurance: unassessed.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: none. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: independent red-team. Category: Cryptographic & computational.
- What the verifier sees: model weights hidden; inputs and outputs shown; training data not involved. The weights stay committed and hidden; the verifier knows each input and output it checks.
- Filter conflict: Shows inputs and outputs to the verifier. The weights stay committed and hidden; the verifier knows each input and output it checks.

### Network taps and certifiers

Devices on a cluster's network links that copy and hash all traffic, so a verifier can later check sampled records against declared work. ([Network taps and certifiers](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked.
- Security evidence: Published security analysis. Independent evaluation: unassessed. Formal proof: unassessed. Deployment assurance: unassessed.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: retrofit device. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Off-chip devices & sensors.
- What the verifier sees: model weights depends; inputs and outputs depends; training data depends. Only hashes leave the site; records picked for a challenge are opened for replay at a verification facility.
- Filter note: May show inputs and outputs, depending on the design. Only hashes leave the site; records picked for a challenge are opened for replay at a verification facility.

### Remote detection of data centres

Remote detection locates large data centres and estimates their power capacity without site access, using satellite imagery, heat signatures and public records such as permits. ([Remote detection of data centres](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/remote-detection-of-data-centres/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for finding undeclared data centres above an agreed compute threshold.
- Security evidence: Published security analysis. Independent evaluation: unassessed. Formal proof: unassessed. Deployment assurance: unassessed.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: none. Prover cooperation: not required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Remote & side-channel sensing.
- What the verifier sees: model weights not involved; inputs and outputs not involved; training data not involved. Works from outside the facility; it does not handle model data.


## Properties

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Network taps and certifiers
- Remote detection of data centres

**No new hardware needed**

- Remote detection of data centres

**Failures since mitigated**

- Verifier dictionary attacks on hashes (in Network taps and certifiers) [13]

Not counted as properties, because the filters exclude them: Zero-knowledge proofs of inference.


## Attack testing

Attack testing records published testing for this use. It does not by itself show independent review, a formal proof or that a deployed system is secure.

**Testing history**

- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: Independent red-team (excluded by filters)
- Network taps and certifiers: Analysis
- Remote detection of data centres: Analysis


## Limits

**Excluded by the filters**

- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: Shows inputs and outputs to the verifier. The weights stay committed and hidden; the verifier knows each input and output it checks.

**Open significant failures**

- Output nondeterminism leaves covert capacity (known failure, theoretical argument, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/evidence/flaws/1/) [13][20]. Hashing cannot remove information hidden in the outputs themselves. The Secure Gateway Device paper estimates that about 0.1 bit per token remains even with seed-synchronized replay checks. For a 200k-GPU inference cluster at full load (2,000 tokens per GPU per second), that is about 40 Mbit/s of covert egress, enough to move a 1 TB model in under three days. The paper names this the core remaining challenge and points to deterministic replay or active scrubbing of hardware-induced entropy. An independent study found that an adversary who chooses the prompts roughly doubles the bits leaked per token under Gumbel-based inference verification; see Bounding unexplained information in outputs.

  Related mechanism: Deterministic and bit-exact inference (R3, not in the proposal). Deterministic replay is one of the two remedies the flaw's source names.

  Related mechanism: Bounding unexplained information in outputs (R2, not in the proposal). Bounds the hidden information outputs can carry by measuring what the declared computation fails to predict.
- Residual side channels in simple passive setups (known failure, theoretical argument, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/evidence/flaws/4/) [16]. Amodo's analysis of its own tapped prototype lists unvalidated header fields, timing of permitted traffic and variation in response formatting as residual channels, and concludes that the passive tap must be replaced by an active one.

**Scope limitations**

- The proof covers a fixed-point approximation, not the floating-point model (scope limitation, open question, in Zero-knowledge proofs of inference; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/zk-proofs-of-inference/evidence/flaws/1/) [1][5][7][11]. 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.
- A proof speaks only for the computations that were proven (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Zero-knowledge proofs of inference; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/zk-proofs-of-inference/evidence/flaws/2/) [12]. 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.

  Related mechanism: Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting (R1, not in the proposal). The record names proof-of-work accounting as the kind of compute accounting needed to show that proven inference was the only work done.
- The model architecture is disclosed (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Zero-knowledge proofs of inference; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/zk-proofs-of-inference/evidence/flaws/3/) [1][3]. ZKML "requires that the model architecture (but not weights) is revealed", and zkLLM assumes a publicly known model structure. Architecture can be commercially sensitive.
- Proofs do not bind computational effort (Hollow-LLM) (scope limitation, demonstrated attack, in Zero-knowledge proofs of inference; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/zk-proofs-of-inference/evidence/flaws/4/) [10]. 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.

  The 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.

  The 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.
- Some links cannot be passively tapped (scope limitation, open question, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/evidence/flaws/2/) [14][21]. Cankaya notes that copper-connected scale-up domains (for example NVL72 racks and TPU v7 cubes) are much harder to tap than fibre, and that optical budgets make passive taps impractical on 400GBASE-SR8 multimode links. Amodo found no taps advertised for 53 GBaud links as of May 2026.
- Encrypted fabrics hide plaintext from both parties (scope limitation, open question, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/evidence/flaws/3/) [14]. Cankaya notes that with TEE-protected sessions whose keys are ephemeral and managed inside the TEE, neither the operator nor the manufacturer can recover session keys after the session, so tapped traffic could not be opened for recomputation. For other encrypted fabrics, the operator can retain keys.
- Completeness rests on physical monitoring left out of scope (scope limitation, open question, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/evidence/flaws/5/) [13]. The Secure Gateway Device paper assumes the facility is physically monitored, and states that the whole architecture depends on the device being the only communication channel. It names radio emanation, power-line signalling and thermal channels as covert channels beyond that scope.

  Related mechanism: Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities (R1, not in the proposal). Addresses the radio, power-line and thermal channels that network-level designs leave out.
- Facilities can be disguised or hidden (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Remote detection of data centres; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/remote-detection-of-data-centres/evidence/flaws/1/) [22]. Halstead and Larsen discuss two ways to hide a facility. One is to disguise it as a legitimate industrial site. The other is to build it underground, with cooling that avoids visible heat plumes. They note that the underground option requires bespoke engineering.
- Small sites may not be detectable (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Remote detection of data centres; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/remote-detection-of-data-centres/evidence/flaws/2/) [22][24]. Halstead and Larsen conclude that a sufficiently small covert project could not be ruled out with confidence. In their estimates, the chance of detection is lower for smaller sites. Krawec notes that small data centres in existing buildings may lack the distinctive features of large facilities.

  Related mechanism: Chip registries and manufacturing records (R1, not in the proposal). Accounts for chips from the fab onwards, which does not depend on a site being visible.

**Open questions**

- Search for unknown sites is undemonstrated (open question, open question, in Remote detection of data centres; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/remote-detection-of-data-centres/evidence/flaws/3/) [24]. Krawec reports that telling data centres apart from other industrial facilities systematically is difficult. Automating detection would need large amounts of training imagery and a purpose-trained model. In Krawec's words, automated data-centre detection "remains primarily conceptual at present".

**Not yet demonstrated**

- Network taps and certifiers: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked
- Remote detection of data centres: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for finding undeclared data centres above an agreed compute threshold


## Possible additions

Mechanisms on the map, not in the proposal, that the records connect to an unaddressed or partly addressed claim, an open failure or a dependency. Pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and findings, and none is claimed to close a failure.

- **Deterministic and bit-exact inference** (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for reproducing open-model inference from receipts in Gensyn's information-market service)
  - Bears on the open significant failure "Output nondeterminism leaves covert capacity" in Network taps and certifiers. Deterministic replay is one of the two remedies the flaw's source names.
  - Network taps and certifiers waits on it: Nondeterministic inference leaves covert capacity in outputs that hashing cannot remove.
- **Bounding unexplained information in outputs** (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for bounding how much hidden information can leave in checked inference outputs)
  - Bears on the open significant failure "Output nondeterminism leaves covert capacity" in Network taps and certifiers. Bounds the hidden information outputs can carry by measuring what the declared computation fails to predict.
- **Tamper evidence for verifier devices** (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for detecting probing of proposed verifier hardware, using server and electronics prototypes as evidence)
  - Network taps and certifiers waits on it: Taps and gateway devices need tamper-evident housing and physical monitoring so that traffic cannot bypass them.
- **Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting** (Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for bounding the spare capacity of declared hardware that could run training)
  - Zero-knowledge proofs of inference waits on it: Showing that proven inference was the only work done needs a compute-accounting mechanism such as proof-of-work accounting, which is only proposed.
- **Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities** (Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for bounding physical covert channels out of a verified enclosure)
  - Network taps and certifiers waits on it: Radio, power-line and thermal channels are not addressed by network-level designs.
- **Sampled inference recomputation** (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for checking untrusted workers' activations against the declared model, prompt and precision)
  - Network taps and certifiers depends on it.


## Dependencies

**Missing prerequisites**

- Sampled inference recomputation (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for checking untrusted workers' activations against the declared model, prompt and precision), needed by Network taps and certifiers
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for reproducing open-model inference from receipts in Gensyn's information-market service), needed by Network taps and certifiers
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for detecting probing of proposed verifier hardware, using server and electronics prototypes as evidence), needed by Network taps and certifiers
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities (Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for bounding physical covert channels out of a verified enclosure), needed by Network taps and certifiers

**Blockers**

- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: 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. (performance & compatibility) [1][11]
- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: 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. (performance & compatibility) [1][3][11]
- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: zkLLM's code is unaudited, interactive and archived; the one audited ZK inference library, ezkl, had high-severity circuit soundness bugs before its fixes. (adversarial validation) [2][7]
- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: Showing that proven inference was the only work done needs a compute-accounting mechanism such as proof-of-work accounting, which is only proposed. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting) [12]
- Network taps and certifiers: No complete verification tap has been demonstrated at production frontend link rates, and on the tested CPU no hash algorithm reached line rate with minimum-size frames. (performance & compatibility) [21][27]
- Network taps and certifiers: Nondeterministic inference leaves covert capacity in outputs that hashing cannot remove. (evidence binding; waits on Deterministic and bit-exact inference) [13]
- Network taps and certifiers: Taps and gateway devices need tamper-evident housing and physical monitoring so that traffic cannot bypass them. (hardware trust; waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices) [11][13]
- Network taps and certifiers: Radio, power-line and thermal channels are not addressed by network-level designs. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities) [13]
- Network taps and certifiers: Red-teaming by specialists is called for but has not been reported. (adversarial validation) [13]
- Remote detection of data centres: Wide-area, automated detection of data centres is not yet practical and needs large training datasets. (coverage & hidden compute) [24]
- Remote detection of data centres: No measured detection or false-alarm rates for finding undeclared facilities have been published. (adversarial validation) [22][24]
- Remote detection of data centres: Recent high-resolution imagery is costly, is limited by weather and needs trained analysts. (access & governance) [24]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for Network taps and certifiers; hidden by Zero-knowledge proofs of inference; not involved in Remote detection of data centres; unspecified for none.
- Inputs and outputs: shown by Zero-knowledge proofs of inference; depends on the design for Network taps and certifiers; hidden by none; not involved in Remote detection of data centres; unspecified for none.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for Network taps and certifiers; hidden by none; not involved in Zero-knowledge proofs of inference and Remote detection of data centres; unspecified for none.

## Implementations

- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: [Attestable zero-knowledge inference prover](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/attestable-zk-inference/) (R1, product); [EZKL](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ezkl/) (R2, product); [Low-trust AI compute verification system overview](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/) (R1, proposed architecture); [zkLLM](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/zkllm/) (R2, research prototype)
- Network taps and certifiers: [AI 2040 inference-only verification stack](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/) (R1, proposed architecture); [Low-trust AI compute verification system overview](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/) (R1, proposed architecture); [SASH confidential network logger](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/sash-confidential-network-logger/) (R1, research prototype)
- Remote detection of data centres: none on the map

## Sources

1. zkLLM: Zero Knowledge Proofs for Large Language Models, H. Sun et al. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3658644.3670334
2. zkllm-ccs2024: code for zkLLM: Zero Knowledge Proofs for Large Language Models, H. Sun (2024). https://github.com/jvhs0706/zkllm-ccs2024
3. ZKML: An Optimizing System for ML Inference in Zero-Knowledge Proofs, B.-J. Chen et al. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3627703.3650088
4. NanoZK: Privacy-Preserving Verifiable Inference for Large Language Models via Layerwise Zero-Knowledge Proofs, Z. Wang (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18046
5. Proving LLMs at Scale, Attestable (2026). https://attestable.com/blog/proving-llms-scale
6. Verifiable evaluations of machine learning models using zkSNARKs, T. South et al. (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.02675
7. Zkonduit EZKL Security Assessment, F. Casal et al. (2025). https://github.com/trailofbits/publications/blob/master/reviews/2025-03-zkonduit-ezkl-securityreview.pdf
8. DeepProve-1: The First zkML System to Prove a Full LLM Inference, Lagrange Labs (2025). https://lagrange.dev/blog/deepprove-1
9. Lagrange-Labs/deep-prove (GitHub repository), Lagrange Labs (2026). https://github.com/Lagrange-Labs/deep-prove
10. Hollow-LLM Attack: Computationally Trivial Weights in Zero-Knowledge Verification of LLM Inference, C. Gong et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28884
11. A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification, N. Cankaya (2026). https://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/A-system-overview-for-near-term-low-trust-AI-compute-verification.pdf
12. Pacing AI Requires Proof, Attestable (2026). https://attestable.com/blog/pacing-ai-requires-proof
13. Fingerprinting All AI Cluster I/O Without Mutually Trusted Processors, N. Cankaya et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10724
14. The Fundamentals and Feasibility of Secure Network Taps for Verifying AI Datacenter Use, N. Cankaya (2026). https://nacicankaya.substack.com/p/research-note-the-fundamentals-and
15. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/verification-plan
16. Fitting a Network TAP to our Inference Verification Prototype, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-09-15-network-tap-inference-verification/
17. Amodo-Design/Inference-Recomputation-Prototype (GitHub repository), Amodo Design (2026). https://github.com/Amodo-Design/Inference-Recomputation-Prototype
18. inference-verification: Inference Verification Prototype, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH) (2026). https://github.com/sg-ai-safety-hub/inference-verification
19. Internationalising AI Verification, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH) (2026). https://www.aisafety.sg/research/internationalising-ai-verification
20. Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification, N. Kezins (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23375
21. Network Tapping for AI Verification: A Technical Assessment, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-05-03-network-tapping/
22. Covert AI Projects, B. Halstead & T. Larsen (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/covert-ai-projects
23. Verifying International Agreements on AI: Six Layers of Verification for Rules on Large-Scale AI Development and Deployment, M. Baker et al. (2025). https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA4077-1.html
24. Tracking Hyperscale AI Data Center Growth with Satellite Imagery, C. Krawec (2026). https://fas.org/publication/tracking-hyperscale/
25. Introducing the Frontier Data Centers Hub, Epoch AI (2025). https://epoch.ai/latest/introducing-the-frontier-data-centers-hub
26. AI Data Centers Documentation – Methodology, Epoch AI (2026). https://epoch.ai/data/data-centers-documentation/methodology
27. Network Traffic Hashing, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-07-03-network-traffic-hashing/