# 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-0013:I-0011

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 | R2 | Adversarial | Independent red-team | None | 0 / 3 / 1 | hidden | shown | not involved |
| Network taps and certifiers / AI 2040 inference-only verification stack | R1 | Adversarial | None | Retrofit device | 0 / 3 / 0 | unspecified | unspecified | unspecified |

## 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.
- 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 hidden; inputs and outputs shown; training data not involved. The weights stay committed and hidden; the verifier knows each input and output it checks.

### Network taps and certifiers

A proposed retrofit that isolates data-centre inference units, taps their front-end traffic and recomputes random samples to check that only declared inference runs. ([Network taps and certifiers](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/))

- Assessment: selected implementation [AI 2040 inference-only verification stack](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/).
- Readiness: R1 Proposed, assessed for showing that retrofitted data centres run only inference.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: retrofit device. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: none. 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.


## Properties

**Built for an adversarial prover**

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

**No new hardware needed**

- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference


## 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: Independent red-team


## Limits

**Open significant flaws**

- 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][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 calls floating-point emulation in ZKPs an open problem.
- 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) [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.
- 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) [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.
- The recomputation server must be trusted (theoretical argument, in AI 2040 inference-only verification stack; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/#flaw-1) [13][14][16]. The plan calls the integrity of the recomputation server an extremely important aspect, and its argument that sampling verifies all outputs assumes that the server's computations and outputs can be trusted. The companion page notes that the server sits inside the prover's facility, possibly under the prover's physical control, and that hardening it against integrity attacks needs significant research. Amodo rates recomputation-server security as not on track.
- Spare compute is not verified (theoretical argument, in AI 2040 inference-only verification stack; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/#flaw-2) [13]. The plan states that it does not verify that spare compute is unused for unapproved workloads, because this seems very challenging. It relies instead on side-channel bounds and memory wipes, so that the only results that persist are verified inference outputs.
- A recomputation family degrades against prompt-controlling adversaries (demonstrated attack, in AI 2040 inference-only verification stack; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/#flaw-3) [13][14][18][19]. The plan's companion page names DiFR among the recomputation schemes being tested. An independent study found that Gumbel-based inference verification, the family that includes Token-DiFR, leaks roughly twice as many bits per token when the adversary chooses prompts that disrupt the text's structure, across six models of 1 to 32 billion parameters. The slowdown it imposes on a hidden-signalling adversary falls from 146–254 times under benign prompts to 60–118 times. The attack weakens the bound on hidden information in outputs, which the plan relies on to keep undeclared results from leaving.

**Family finding context**

- Context for AI 2040 inference-only verification stack; applicability depends on the finding's scope. Output nondeterminism leaves covert capacity (theoretical argument, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/#flaw-1) [19][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.
- Context for AI 2040 inference-only verification stack; applicability depends on the finding's scope. Some links cannot be passively tapped (open question, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/#flaw-2) [21][22]. 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.
- Context for AI 2040 inference-only verification stack; applicability depends on the finding's scope. Encrypted fabrics hide plaintext from both parties (open question, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/#flaw-3) [21]. 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.
- Context for AI 2040 inference-only verification stack; applicability depends on the finding's scope. Residual side channels in simple passive setups (theoretical argument, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/#flaw-4) [17]. 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.
- Context for AI 2040 inference-only verification stack; applicability depends on the finding's scope. 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) [20]. 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.
- Context for AI 2040 inference-only verification stack; applicability depends on the finding's scope. Verifier dictionary attacks on hashes (theoretical argument, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/#flaw-6) [20]. Hashes of very short outputs could be brute-forced by the verifier. The paper recommends hashing at least 5 tokens together, or at least 10 if the attacker filters for likely tokens.

**Open minor flaws**

- The model architecture is disclosed (theoretical argument, in Zero-knowledge proofs of inference; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/zk-proofs-of-inference/#flaw-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.

**Not yet demonstrated**

- Network taps and certifiers: R1 Proposed, assessed for showing that retrofitted data centres run only inference


## 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.

- **Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting** (R1 Proposed, assessed for bounding the spare capacity of declared hardware that could run training)
  - Bears on the open significant flaw "A proof speaks only for the computations that were proven" in Zero-knowledge proofs of inference. The record names proof-of-work accounting as the kind of compute accounting needed to show that proven inference was the only work done.
  - 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.
- **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: Checking that taps are correctly installed and stay in place at scale is not a solved problem, and hardening the recomputation server inside the prover's facility needs significant research.
- **Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure** (R1 Proposed, assessed for showing that no data from earlier work persists in memory the wipe reaches)
  - Network taps and certifiers waits on it: Memory wiping may use existing algorithms, but hardware testing is at an early stage.
- **Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities** (R1 Proposed, assessed for bounding physical covert channels out of a verified enclosure)
  - Network taps and certifiers waits on it: There is no plan yet for quickly scaling side-channel defences on a frontier cluster; only early theoretical pieces exist.
- **Whole-workload recomputation (reproducible packets)** (R1 Proposed, assessed for recomputing whole workloads to show a cluster runs only declared inference)
  - Network taps and certifiers waits on it: A fully reproducible inference stack needs substantial software and tooling, and per-packet network reproducibility may need considerable software, firmware and possibly hardware work.
- **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
- Whole-workload recomputation (reproducible packets) (R1 Proposed, assessed for recomputing whole workloads to show a cluster runs only declared inference), 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 floating-point emulation in ZKPs is described as an open problem. (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: A fully reproducible inference stack needs substantial software and tooling, and per-packet network reproducibility may need considerable software, firmware and possibly hardware work. (performance & compatibility; waits on Whole-workload recomputation (reproducible packets)) [14]
- Network taps and certifiers: Passive optical taps work at 400G, but the 800G and 1600G line rates now arriving in data centres are undemonstrated. (performance & compatibility; waits on Network taps and certifiers) [14]
- Network taps and certifiers: Checking that taps are correctly installed and stay in place at scale is not a solved problem, and hardening the recomputation server inside the prover's facility needs significant research. (hardware trust; waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices) [14][16]
- Network taps and certifiers: There is no plan yet for quickly scaling side-channel defences on a frontier cluster; only early theoretical pieces exist. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities) [14]
- Network taps and certifiers: Memory wiping may use existing algorithms, but hardware testing is at an early stage. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure) [14]
- Network taps and certifiers: Robust red-teaming of recomputation schemes has not started, and most algorithm development remains academic. (adversarial validation) [14][16]


## What the verifier sees

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

## 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. 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. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/verification-plan
14. Get Involved in Verification, AI Futures Project (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/verification-plan/get-involved
15. Verifying international AI deals: Plan A, the state-of-play, and what you can do to help, T. Milton et al. (2026). https://amodo.substack.com/p/verifying-international-ai-deals
16. AI 2040 Plan A — Verification SITREP, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/ai-verification/plan-a-sitrep/
17. Fitting a Network TAP to our Inference Verification Prototype, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-09-15-network-tap-inference-verification/
18. Verifying LLM Inference to Detect Model Weight Exfiltration, R. Rinberg et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02620
19. Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification, N. Kezins (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23375
20. Fingerprinting All AI Cluster I/O Without Mutually Trusted Processors, N. Cankaya et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10724
21. 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
22. Network Tapping for AI Verification: A Technical Assessment, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-05-03-network-tapping/