# 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-0013&implementations=M-0004:I-0014

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 / EZKL | R2 | Adversarial | Independent red-team | None | 0 / 1 / 0 | unspecified | unspecified | unspecified |
| Network taps and certifiers | R1 | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 5 / 0 | depends | depends | depends |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### Zero-knowledge proofs of inference

EZKL is a library from Zkonduit that turns neural networks into zero-knowledge circuits, so a prover can show an output came from a committed model. ([Zero-knowledge proofs of inference](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/zk-proofs-of-inference/))

- Assessment: selected implementation [EZKL](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ezkl/).
- Readiness: R2 Demonstrated, assessed for proving a language model's output follows from committed weights, against a cheating prover.
- 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 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.

### 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.
- Readiness: R1 Proposed, assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked.
- 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.


## Properties

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference
- Network taps and certifiers

**No new hardware needed**

- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference

**Flaws since mitigated**

- Circuit and contract bugs allowed forged proofs (in Zero-knowledge proofs of inference) [3]
- Verifier dictionary attacks on hashes (in Network taps and certifiers) [10]


## 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 / EZKL: Independent red-team
- Network taps and certifiers: Analysis


## Limits

**Open significant flaws**

- Quantization can activate a backdoor dormant in the full-precision model (demonstrated attack, in EZKL; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ezkl/#flaw-2) [3]. EZKL quantizes values to represent them in a finite field. Trail of Bits built a ResNet-18 whose backdoor is dormant at full precision and active after EZKL's quantization. Larger models and smaller quantization scales make the attack easier. Whether the backdoor persists through the witness and proof stages was left for further investigation. The fix was documentation of the risk.
- Output nondeterminism leaves covert capacity (theoretical argument, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/#flaw-1) [10][17]. 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.
- Some links cannot be passively tapped (open question, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/#flaw-2) [11][18]. 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 (open question, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/#flaw-3) [11]. 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.
- Residual side channels in simple passive setups (theoretical argument, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/#flaw-4) [13]. 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.
- Completeness rests on physical monitoring left out of scope (open question, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/#flaw-5) [10]. 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.

**Family finding context**

- Context for EZKL; 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) [3][4][5][6]. 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 EZKL; 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) [7]. 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 EZKL; 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) [4][8]. 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 EZKL; 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) [9]. 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.

**Not yet demonstrated**

- Network taps and certifiers: R1 Proposed, assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked


## 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 "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** (R2 Demonstrated, assessed for bounding how much hidden information can leave in checked inference outputs)
  - Bears on the open significant flaw "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.
- **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 "Completeness rests on physical monitoring left out of scope" in Network taps and certifiers. Addresses the radio, power-line and thermal channels that network-level designs leave out.
  - Network taps and certifiers waits on it: Radio, power-line and thermal channels are not addressed by network-level designs.
- **Tamper evidence for verifier devices** (R2 Demonstrated, 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.
- **Sampled inference recomputation** (R3 In production, 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 (R3 In production, assessed for checking untrusted workers' activations against the declared model, prompt and precision), needed by Network taps and certifiers
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference (R3 In production, 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 (R2 Demonstrated, 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 (R1 Proposed, assessed for bounding physical covert channels out of a verified enclosure), needed by Network taps and certifiers

**Blockers**

- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference: Proving cost grows steeply with model size: a 250,000-parameter nanoGPT took 2,781 s to prove and needed a 219 GB proving key, which South et al. name as the main limit on model size. (performance & compatibility) [2]
- 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) [18][19]
- Network taps and certifiers: Nondeterministic inference leaves covert capacity in outputs that hashing cannot remove. (evidence binding; waits on Deterministic and bit-exact inference) [10]
- 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) [6][10]
- 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) [10]
- Network taps and certifiers: Red-teaming by specialists is called for but has not been reported. (adversarial validation) [10]


## What the verifier sees

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

## Sources

1. zkonduit/ezkl (GitHub repository), Zkonduit Inc. (2026). https://github.com/zkonduit/ezkl
2. Verifiable evaluations of machine learning models using zkSNARKs, T. South et al. (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.02675
3. Zkonduit EZKL Security Assessment, F. Casal et al. (2025). https://github.com/trailofbits/publications/blob/master/reviews/2025-03-zkonduit-ezkl-securityreview.pdf
4. zkLLM: Zero Knowledge Proofs for Large Language Models, H. Sun et al. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3658644.3670334
5. Proving LLMs at Scale, Attestable (2026). https://attestable.com/blog/proving-llms-scale
6. 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
7. Pacing AI Requires Proof, Attestable (2026). https://attestable.com/blog/pacing-ai-requires-proof
8. ZKML: An Optimizing System for ML Inference in Zero-Knowledge Proofs, B.-J. Chen et al. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3627703.3650088
9. Hollow-LLM Attack: Computationally Trivial Weights in Zero-Knowledge Verification of LLM Inference, C. Gong et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28884
10. Fingerprinting All AI Cluster I/O Without Mutually Trusted Processors, N. Cankaya et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10724
11. 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
12. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/verification-plan
13. Fitting a Network TAP to our Inference Verification Prototype, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-09-15-network-tap-inference-verification/
14. Amodo-Design/Inference-Recomputation-Prototype (GitHub repository), Amodo Design (2026). https://github.com/Amodo-Design/Inference-Recomputation-Prototype
15. inference-verification: Inference Verification Prototype, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH) (2026). https://github.com/sg-ai-safety-hub/inference-verification
16. Internationalising AI Verification, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH) (2026). https://www.aisafety.sg/research/internationalising-ai-verification
17. Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification, N. Kezins (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23375
18. Network Tapping for AI Verification: A Technical Assessment, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-05-03-network-tapping/
19. Network Traffic Hashing, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-07-03-network-traffic-hashing/