# AI verification proposal

A proposal built with the Proposal Explorer of the AI Verification Tech Map (https://trustbutveri.fyi/), from its records of 2026-10-08. Interactive version: https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0001,M-0024,M-0014&hide=training

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 readiness and open flaws. Readiness levels R0 to R4 describe one record's public evidence for its assessed use and are never combined. Definitions: https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/methodology/ (roles, properties and flaws) and https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/readiness/ (readiness levels).

## Filters

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

- **Keep hidden from the verifier: training data.** 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 flaws: critical / significant / minor. The last three columns are the editors' reading of what the verifier sees.

| Mechanism | Readiness | Prover | Attack testing | Hardware | Open flaws | Weights | Inputs and outputs | Training data |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sampled inference recomputation | R3 | Adversarial | Analysis | None | 0 / 3 / 1 | depends | depends | not involved |
| Bounding unexplained information in outputs | R2 | Adversarial | Independent red-team | Retrofit device | 0 / 4 / 0 | depends | depends | not involved |
| Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization | R2 | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 5 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### Sampled inference recomputation

A verifier re-runs a random sample of an AI provider's logged queries on a trusted copy of the declared model and checks the outputs match. ([Sampled inference recomputation](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/sampled-inference-recomputation/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Readiness: R3 In production, assessed for checking untrusted workers' activations against the declared model, prompt and precision.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: none. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Cryptographic & computational.
- What the verifier sees: model weights depends; inputs and outputs depends; training data not involved. Recomputation needs the weights and sampled requests inside the checking environment. For closed models, the record describes a trusted, confidential environment; disclosure to the verifier depends on that boundary.

### Bounding unexplained information in outputs

Limits the hidden information a facility's outputs can carry by measuring how much of those outputs the declared computation fails to predict. ([Bounding unexplained information in outputs](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bounding-unexplained-information/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Readiness: R2 Demonstrated, assessed for bounding how much hidden information can leave in checked inference outputs.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: retrofit device. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: independent red-team. Category: Isolation & system architectures.
- What the verifier sees: model weights depends; inputs and outputs depends; training data not involved. Depends on where recomputation runs: in a sealed enclosure, or with zero-knowledge proofs, the verifier need not see the weights or the traffic.

### Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

Capping or removing network links between groups of accelerators, so that serving within each group still works but large training across groups becomes far slower. ([Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Readiness: R2 Demonstrated, assessed for monitoring inter-node traffic with operator-run software on four GPUs.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: retrofit device. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Isolation & system architectures.
- What the verifier sees: model weights not involved; inputs and outputs not involved; training data not involved. Caps traffic between groups of chips; it does not read the traffic's content.


## Properties

**In production**

- Sampled inference recomputation: R3 In production, assessed for checking untrusted workers' activations against the declared model, prompt and precision

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Sampled inference recomputation
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

**No new hardware needed**

- Sampled inference recomputation


## Attack testing

Published attempts to break a system, including those that found failures. Testing history does not establish that open flaws are resolved.

**Testing history**

- Sampled inference recomputation: Analysis
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs: Independent red-team
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: Analysis


## Limits

**Open significant flaws**

- Tolerance for numerical noise leaves a covert channel (demonstrated attack, in Sampled inference recomputation; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/sampled-inference-recomputation/#flaw-1) [1][9][12]. Schemes that accept approximate matches can put an upper bound on an adversary's covert bandwidth, but they cannot close the channel. The weight-exfiltration detector cut exfiltratable information to under 0.5%, not to zero, on a 30-billion-parameter mixture-of-experts model under benign prompt traffic. Its authors called the channel's size under adversarial prompts an open empirical question. An independent study showed that an adversary who controls the prompts roughly doubles the bits leaked per token. Across six models, that cut the slowdown from 146–254 times under benign prompts to 60–118 times. The attack widens the exfiltration bound. It does not target the check that outputs match the declared model.

  Related mechanism: Deterministic and bit-exact inference (R3, not in the proposal). Bit-exact inference would remove the numerical tolerance if exact replay can be deployed with the required weights and configuration.
- Only recorded traffic is checked (theoretical argument, in Sampled inference recomputation; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/sampled-inference-recomputation/#flaw-2) [1][13]. Recomputation checks that recorded, declared workloads are correct. It cannot show that the record is complete. The published schemes do not cover hidden workloads run on the same compute, or substituted work. Rinberg et al. say their exfiltration-detection scheme cannot stand alone.

  Related mechanism: Network taps and certifiers (R1, not in the proposal). Taps copy and hash all traffic on the monitored links, which bears on whether the traffic record is complete. They do not show what else ran on the same chips.
- Some inference optimizations are not covered (theoretical argument, in Sampled inference recomputation; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/sampled-inference-recomputation/#flaw-3) [2][3]. TOPLOC's authors state that it cannot detect speculative decoding in which a cheaper model does the decoding. They did not test whether it distinguishes types of key-value (KV) cache compression. DiFR was evaluated only on sampling from a single model. Its authors sketch an extension to one speculative-decoding algorithm but do not test it.
- Prompt-controlled entropy inflation widens the covert channel (demonstrated attack, in Bounding unexplained information in outputs; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bounding-unexplained-information/#flaw-1) [1][9]. 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.

  Related mechanism: Deterministic and bit-exact inference (R3, not in the proposal). 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.
- Information the declared computation explains is not bounded (theoretical argument, in Bounding unexplained information in outputs; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bounding-unexplained-information/#flaw-2) [15][16]. 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.
- Channels other than checked outputs are outside the bound (theoretical argument, in Bounding unexplained information in outputs; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bounding-unexplained-information/#flaw-3) [1][14]. 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.

  Related mechanism: Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities (R1, not in the proposal). Physical side channels need separate suppression, which is this mechanism's purpose.
- The facility-level design is untested (open question, in Bounding unexplained information in outputs; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bounding-unexplained-information/#flaw-4) [15]. The compute-verification architecture is described with protocol details, potential attacks and prototyping plans, but no prototype results have been published.
- Low-communication training reduces the bandwidth training needs (theoretical argument, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/#flaw-1) [18][21][22]. DiLoCo matched fully synchronous training on 8 workers while communicating 500 times less. Rahman writes that this family of methods theoretically allows large-scale training with less than 100 Mbps. Lucid includes these methods in its bounds, but notes that extreme activation compression, architectures with unusually small inter-layer widths, or modular paradigms could erode the margin.
- Operator control of pod routing collapses the bound (theoretical argument, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/#flaw-2) [18]. Lucid's analysis finds that if the operator can freely assign pods to routers, it could dedicate a whole cell of 100 or more pods to one pipeline stage. The bound then falls to about 90–220x uncompressed and as low as about 25x with compression. The proposed mitigation, auditor-controlled random assignment that is periodically re-randomized, has not been implemented.
- Undeclared local storage raises per-pod capacity (theoretical argument, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/#flaw-3) [18]. More memory or storage per pod helps an adversary. Lucid requires per-pod storage to be declared, capped and physically inspected.
- Training within one pod is not covered (open question, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/#flaw-4) [18]. Lucid's bounds concern pre-training models larger than the pods are sized for. Training models that fit in one pod, fine-tuning and reinforcement-learning post-training within one pod are outside the modelled threat.
- Parallel scale-up switches are hard enforcement points (theoretical argument, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/#flaw-5) [20]. In GB200 topologies, GPUs reach GPUs in other nodes through NVSwitches without a NIC on the path. Amodo notes that limits are hard to enforce there because many switches work in parallel, so compromising one or two would bypass the limit.

**Open minor flaws**

- Mixed hardware widens the honest baseline (open question, in Sampled inference recomputation; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/sampled-inference-recomputation/#flaw-4) [2]. When honest reference runs span different GPU types, the spread of benign scores grows. In DiFR's tests on Qwen3-30B-A3B, pooling A100 and H200 runs left Token-DiFR unable to separate the two smallest tested changes, a temperature of 1.1 instead of 1.0 and a simulated top-2 sampling bug, at the target false-positive rate, while cross-entropy separated them. Matched provider and verifier environments, or pooling that weights rare large deviations, restored detection.


## Possible additions

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

- **Deterministic and bit-exact inference** (R3 In production, assessed for reproducing open-model inference from receipts in Gensyn's information-market service)
  - Bears on the open significant flaw "Tolerance for numerical noise leaves a covert channel" in Sampled inference recomputation. Bit-exact inference would remove the numerical tolerance if exact replay can be deployed with the required weights and configuration.
  - Bears on the open significant flaw "Prompt-controlled entropy inflation widens the covert channel" in Bounding unexplained information in outputs. 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.
  - Bounding unexplained information in outputs waits on it: Tolerance for numerical nondeterminism sets the size of the residual channel; bit-exact replay would remove it but needs full hardware and software metadata.
- **Network taps and certifiers** (R1 Proposed, assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked)
  - Bears on the open significant flaw "Only recorded traffic is checked" in Sampled inference recomputation. Taps copy and hash all traffic on the monitored links, which bears on whether the traffic record is complete. They do not show what else ran on the same chips.
  - Sampled inference recomputation waits on it: In tap-based retrofit designs, recording all inference traffic needs network taps and recomputation servers that can ingest it, in the worst case one recomputation-server network interface per inference front-end interface.
  - Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization waits on it: The verifier must know that all traffic leaving a pod crosses the capped, monitored links.
  - Bounding unexplained information in outputs depends on it.
- **Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities** (R1 Proposed, assessed for bounding physical covert channels out of a verified enclosure)
  - Bears on the open significant flaw "Channels other than checked outputs are outside the bound" in Bounding unexplained information in outputs. Physical side channels need separate suppression, which is this mechanism's purpose.
  - Bounding unexplained information in outputs waits on it: Physical side channels need separate suppression, and one design treats a low residual bandwidth, rather than zero, as the realistic target.
- **Tamper evidence for verifier devices** (R2 Demonstrated, assessed for detecting probing of proposed verifier hardware, using server and electronics prototypes as evidence)
  - Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization waits on it: Shaping devices and routing assignments must be trusted by both parties; Amodo has not yet fully analysed resilience to a compromised DPU.


## Dependencies

**Missing prerequisites**

- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities (R1 Proposed, assessed for bounding physical covert channels out of a verified enclosure), needed by Bounding unexplained information in outputs
- Network taps and certifiers (R1 Proposed, assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked), needed by Bounding unexplained information in outputs
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices (R2 Demonstrated, assessed for detecting probing of proposed verifier hardware, using server and electronics prototypes as evidence), needed by Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

**Shared foundations**

- Network taps and certifiers, relied on by Sampled inference recomputation, Bounding unexplained information in outputs and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

**Blockers**

- Sampled inference recomputation: In tap-based retrofit designs, recording all inference traffic needs network taps and recomputation servers that can ingest it, in the worst case one recomputation-server network interface per inference front-end interface. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Network taps and certifiers) [8][17]
- Sampled inference recomputation: In retrofit designs, the recomputation server must sit inside the prover's data centre, possibly under the prover's physical control, and still be protected from a compromised provider, which Amodo rates 'not on track'. (hardware trust) [1][8]
- Sampled inference recomputation: No independent red-team of a recomputation consistency check has been published (the one independent attack study targets the weight-exfiltration bound), and Amodo rates recomputation red-teaming 'not started'. (adversarial validation) [8][9]
- Sampled inference recomputation: Tolerance-based checks need calibration on trusted hardware and exact knowledge of the provider's sampling procedure, and in one prototype a sampling-implementation mismatch produced large spurious differences. (performance & compatibility) [2][7]
- Sampled inference recomputation: The verifier needs the model weights, so checking a closed-weights model requires a trusted, confidential recomputation environment, which the retrofit designs place inside the prover's facility. (privacy & leakage) [2][13][14]
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs: The prover's compute must be isolated so that all traffic passes through the verifier's interlock; any unmonitored path voids the bound. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization) [15]
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs: Physical side channels need separate suppression, and one design treats a low residual bandwidth, rather than zero, as the realistic target. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities) [1][14]
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs: Tolerance for numerical nondeterminism sets the size of the residual channel; bit-exact replay would remove it but needs full hardware and software metadata. (protocol soundness; waits on Deterministic and bit-exact inference) [9][14]
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs: 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. (privacy & leakage) [15]
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs: No prototype of the facility-level architecture exists to red-team. (adversarial validation) [15]
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: No cap that a verifier can check has been implemented or red-teamed. (adversarial validation) [18]
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: The verifier must know that all traffic leaving a pod crosses the capped, monitored links. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Network taps and certifiers) [14]
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: Shaping devices and routing assignments must be trusted by both parties; Amodo has not yet fully analysed resilience to a compromised DPU. (hardware trust; waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices) [18][20]
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: Advances in low-communication training could shrink the margin that the cap enforces. (capacity bounds) [18][21][22]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for Sampled inference recomputation and Bounding unexplained information in outputs; hidden by none; not involved in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; unspecified for none.
- Inputs and outputs: shown by none; depends on the design for Sampled inference recomputation and Bounding unexplained information in outputs; hidden by none; not involved in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; unspecified for none.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Sampled inference recomputation, Bounding unexplained information in outputs and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; unspecified for none.

## Implementations

- Sampled inference recomputation: [AI 2040 inference-only verification stack](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/) (R1, proposed architecture); [DiFR (Divergence From Reference)](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/difr/) (R2, research prototype); [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); [TOPLOC](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/toploc/) (R3, open-source project)
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs: none on the map
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: [AI 2040 inference-only verification stack](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/) (R1, proposed architecture); [RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/) (R1, proposed architecture)

## Sources

1. Verifying LLM Inference to Detect Model Weight Exfiltration, R. Rinberg et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02620
2. DiFR: Inference Verification Despite Nondeterminism, A. Karvonen et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.20621
3. TOPLOC: A Locality Sensitive Hashing Scheme for Trustless Verifiable Inference, J. M. Ong et al. (2025). https://proceedings.mlr.press/v267/ong25a.html
4. PrimeIntellect-ai/toploc (GitHub repository), Prime Intellect (2025). https://github.com/PrimeIntellect-ai/toploc
5. INTELLECT-2: A Reasoning Model Trained Through Globally Decentralized Reinforcement Learning, Prime Intellect Team et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.07291
6. adamkarvonen/difr (GitHub repository), A. Karvonen (2025). https://github.com/adamkarvonen/difr
7. Scaling Recomputation Inference Verification, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-09-02-scaling-recomputation-inference-verification/
8. AI 2040 Plan A — Verification SITREP, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/ai-verification/plan-a-sitrep/
9. Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification, N. Kezins (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23375
10. SYNTHETIC-2 Release: Four Million Collaboratively Generated Reasoning Traces, Prime Intellect (2025). https://www.primeintellect.ai/blog/synthetic-2-release
11. An Inference Verification Prototype — Stage 1, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-06-29-inference-verification-prototype/
12. Bit-Exact AI Inference Verification Without Performance Tradeoffs, N. Cankaya (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00279
13. Example Schemes for Verifying High-Stakes AI Agreements, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-06-23-verification-algorithms/
14. 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
15. Verifying AI Compute by Bounding Unexplained Information Exfiltration, J. Petrie & Y. Mühlhäuser (2026). https://openreview.net/forum?id=qtgG5HZSsk
16. Haiku to Opus in Just 10 bits: LLMs Unlock Large Compression Gains, R. Rinberg et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02343
17. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/verification-plan
18. Traffic Shaping for Workload Classification, Lucid Computing (2026). https://lucidcomputing.substack.com/p/traffic-shaping-for-workload-classification
19. De-risking Interconnect Limits for AI Verification, A. Scher et al. (2026). https://techgov.intelligence.org/blog/de-risking-interconnect-limits-for-ai-verification
20. The Tray as a Bandwidth Boundary, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-03-16-dpu-bandwidth-limiter/
21. DiLoCo: Distributed Low-Communication Training of Language Models, A. Douillard et al. (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08105
22. Does Distributed Training Undermine Compute Governance?, R. Rahman (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29359