# 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-0004,M-0020&implementations=M-0004:I-0012

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.

None set. Every mechanism on the map was available.

## 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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Zero-knowledge proofs of inference / Low-trust AI compute verification system overview | R1 | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 2 / 1 | unspecified | unspecified | unspecified |
| Remote detection of data centres | R1 | Adversarial | Analysis | None | 0 / 3 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### Zero-knowledge proofs of inference

A retrofittable reference design in which network taps commit to all facility traffic, and air-gapped, independently sourced checkers later re-run randomly challenged records. ([Zero-knowledge proofs of inference](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/zk-proofs-of-inference/))

- Assessment: selected implementation [Low-trust AI compute verification system overview](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/).
- Readiness: R1 Proposed, assessed for screening challenged records to show declared inference compute is not training.
- 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 unspecified; inputs and outputs unspecified; training data unspecified. This Explorer has no asset-specific exposure assessment for this implementation. Check its source and deployment assumptions.

### 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.
- Readiness: R1 Proposed, assessed for finding undeclared data centres above an agreed compute threshold.
- 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**

- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference
- Remote detection of data centres

**No new hardware needed**

- Remote detection of data centres


## 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**

- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference / Low-trust AI compute verification system overview: Analysis
- Remote detection of data centres: Analysis


## Limits

**Open significant flaws**

- Mismatches cannot be attributed to cheating or error (theoretical argument, in Low-trust AI compute verification system overview; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/#flaw-1) [1]. A failed hash or replay does not show whether it came from an evasion attempt, a random bit flip or an evaluation error. The author notes that if detected anomalies can plausibly be waved off as malfunctions, deterrence becomes less effective, so the parties need an agreed escalation procedure that ends in attribution.
- Inspector agents may be manipulable (open question, in Low-trust AI compute verification system overview; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/#flaw-3) [1]. Automated compliance screening with LLM-based inspector agents must resist prompt-injection attacks. Adversarially trained systems might hide malicious actions with steganography, which makes backdoor detection an open problem.
- Facilities can be disguised or hidden (theoretical argument, in Remote detection of data centres; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/remote-detection-of-data-centres/#flaw-1) [9]. 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 (theoretical argument, in Remote detection of data centres; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/remote-detection-of-data-centres/#flaw-2) [9][11]. 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.
- Search for unknown sites is undemonstrated (open question, in Remote detection of data centres; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/remote-detection-of-data-centres/#flaw-3) [11]. 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".

**Family finding context**

- Context for Low-trust AI compute verification system overview; applicability depends on the finding's scope. The proof covers a fixed-point approximation, not the floating-point model (open question, in Zero-knowledge proofs of inference; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/zk-proofs-of-inference/#flaw-1) [1][3][4][5]. 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 calls floating-point emulation in ZKPs an open problem.
- Context for Low-trust AI compute verification system overview; applicability depends on the finding's scope. A proof speaks only for the computations that were proven (theoretical argument, in Zero-knowledge proofs of inference; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/zk-proofs-of-inference/#flaw-2) [6]. 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.
- Context for Low-trust AI compute verification system overview; applicability depends on the finding's scope. The model architecture is disclosed (theoretical argument, in Zero-knowledge proofs of inference; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/zk-proofs-of-inference/#flaw-3) [3][7]. ZKML "requires that the model architecture (but not weights) is revealed", and zkLLM assumes a publicly known model structure. Architecture can be commercially sensitive.
- Context for Low-trust AI compute verification system overview; applicability depends on the finding's scope. Proofs do not bind computational effort (Hollow-LLM) (demonstrated attack, in Zero-knowledge proofs of inference; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/zk-proofs-of-inference/#flaw-4) [8]. 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.

**Open minor flaws**

- Deliberate faults leak a bit each (theoretical argument, in Low-trust AI compute verification system overview; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/#flaw-2) [1]. A malicious device can leak one bit by deliberately outputting a wrong result, which blocks a disclosure when the cross-comparison fails. The design therefore needs a pre-agreed budget of tolerated faults.

**Not yet demonstrated**

- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: R1 Proposed, assessed for screening challenged records to show declared inference compute is not training
- Remote detection of data centres: R1 Proposed, 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 flaw or a dependency. Pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and flaws, and none is claimed to close a flaw.

- **Chip registries and manufacturing records** (R1 Proposed, assessed for a checkable record of which chips were made and who declared owning them)
  - Bears on the open significant flaw "Small sites may not be detectable" in Remote detection of data centres. Accounts for chips from the fab onwards, which does not depend on a site being visible.
- **Deterministic and bit-exact inference** (R3 In production, assessed for reproducing open-model inference from receipts in Gensyn's information-market service)
  - Zero-knowledge proofs of inference waits on it: Exact replay needs complete hardware and software metadata, and the tolerable slowdown from emulation is an open question.
- **Tamper evidence for verifier devices** (R2 Demonstrated, assessed for detecting probing of proposed verifier hardware, using server and electronics prototypes as evidence)
  - Zero-knowledge proofs of inference waits on it: Tamper-evident, rapidly mass-manufacturable and retrofittable enclosures for side-channel defence are an open research question, and physical security against covert communication in every monitored data centre is challenging.
- **Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges** (R2 Demonstrated, assessed for detecting whether a GPU is doing other work)
  - Zero-knowledge proofs of inference waits on it: Distinguishing one server's DRAM contents from another's by challenge-response timing, and a general challenge-response protocol for diverse data types, are open.
- **Network taps and certifiers** (R1 Proposed, assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked)
  - Zero-knowledge proofs of inference waits on it: Empirical feasibility of passive optical splitting at 53–112 GBaud under realistic conditions is an open question.
- **Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities** (R1 Proposed, assessed for bounding physical covert channels out of a verified enclosure)
  - Zero-knowledge proofs of inference waits on it: A mass-manufacturable, good-enough side-channel defence, particularly power-line filtering, has not been constructed or red-teamed.


## Dependencies

**Missing prerequisites**

- Network taps and certifiers (R1 Proposed, assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked), needed by Zero-knowledge proofs of inference
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference (R3 In production, assessed for reproducing open-model inference from receipts in Gensyn's information-market service), needed by Zero-knowledge proofs of inference

**Blockers**

- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: Empirical feasibility of passive optical splitting at 53–112 GBaud under realistic conditions is an open question. (performance & compatibility; waits on Network taps and certifiers) [1]
- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: Exact replay needs complete hardware and software metadata, and the tolerable slowdown from emulation is an open question. (performance & compatibility; waits on Deterministic and bit-exact inference) [1]
- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: Tamper-evident, rapidly mass-manufacturable and retrofittable enclosures for side-channel defence are an open research question, and physical security against covert communication in every monitored data centre is challenging. (hardware trust; waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices) [1]
- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: A mass-manufacturable, good-enough side-channel defence, particularly power-line filtering, has not been constructed or red-teamed. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities) [1]
- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: Distinguishing one server's DRAM contents from another's by challenge-response timing, and a general challenge-response protocol for diverse data types, are open. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges) [1]
- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: The threat model is under-developed and needs input from cybersecurity and AI threat-modelling experts. (adversarial validation) [1]
- Remote detection of data centres: Wide-area, automated detection of data centres is not yet practical and needs large training datasets. (coverage & hidden compute) [11]
- Remote detection of data centres: No measured detection or false-alarm rates for finding undeclared facilities have been published. (adversarial validation) [9][11]
- Remote detection of data centres: Recent high-resolution imagery is costly, is limited by weather and needs trained analysts. (access & governance) [11]


## What the verifier sees

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

## 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)
- Remote detection of data centres: none on the map

## Sources

1. 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
2. Fingerprinting All AI Cluster I/O Without Mutually Trusted Processors, N. Cankaya et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10724
3. zkLLM: Zero Knowledge Proofs for Large Language Models, H. Sun et al. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3658644.3670334
4. Proving LLMs at Scale, Attestable (2026). https://attestable.com/blog/proving-llms-scale
5. Zkonduit EZKL Security Assessment, F. Casal et al. (2025). https://github.com/trailofbits/publications/blob/master/reviews/2025-03-zkonduit-ezkl-securityreview.pdf
6. Pacing AI Requires Proof, Attestable (2026). https://attestable.com/blog/pacing-ai-requires-proof
7. ZKML: An Optimizing System for ML Inference in Zero-Knowledge Proofs, B.-J. Chen et al. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3627703.3650088
8. Hollow-LLM Attack: Computationally Trivial Weights in Zero-Knowledge Verification of LLM Inference, C. Gong et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28884
9. Covert AI Projects, B. Halstead & T. Larsen (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/covert-ai-projects
10. 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
11. Tracking Hyperscale AI Data Center Growth with Satellite Imagery, C. Krawec (2026). https://fas.org/publication/tracking-hyperscale/
12. Introducing the Frontier Data Centers Hub, Epoch AI (2025). https://epoch.ai/latest/introducing-the-frontier-data-centers-hub
13. AI Data Centers Documentation – Methodology, Epoch AI (2026). https://epoch.ai/data/data-centers-documentation/methodology