# 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&ready=R1

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.

- **Minimum readiness: R1 Proposed.** Keeps mechanisms whose readiness level is at least this one. A level describes the public evidence for a mechanism's stated use, not its cost or feasibility. R3 can still have open critical flaws.

25 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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Zero-knowledge proofs of inference | R2 | Adversarial | Independent red-team | None | 0 / 3 / 1 | hidden | shown | not involved |
| 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 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.

### 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**

- Zero-knowledge proofs of inference
- 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: Independent red-team
- Remote detection of data centres: Analysis


## 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.
- 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) [13]. 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) [13][15]. 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) [15]. 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".

**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**

- 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.
- **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.


## Dependencies

**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]
- Remote detection of data centres: Wide-area, automated detection of data centres is not yet practical and needs large training datasets. (coverage & hidden compute) [15]
- Remote detection of data centres: No measured detection or false-alarm rates for finding undeclared facilities have been published. (adversarial validation) [13][15]
- Remote detection of data centres: Recent high-resolution imagery is costly, is limited by weather and needs trained analysts. (access & governance) [15]


## 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 Remote detection of data centres; unspecified for none.
- Inputs and outputs: shown by Zero-knowledge proofs of inference; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Remote detection of data centres; unspecified for none.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for none; 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)
- 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. Covert AI Projects, B. Halstead & T. Larsen (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/covert-ai-projects
14. 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
15. Tracking Hyperscale AI Data Center Growth with Satellite Imagery, C. Krawec (2026). https://fas.org/publication/tracking-hyperscale/
16. Introducing the Frontier Data Centers Hub, Epoch AI (2025). https://epoch.ai/latest/introducing-the-frontier-data-centers-hub
17. AI Data Centers Documentation – Methodology, Epoch AI (2026). https://epoch.ai/data/data-centers-documentation/methodology