Proposal Explorer

Reset

A verification proposal from the AI Verification Tech Map, from its records of 2026-10-08. https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0001,M-0002&ready=R2

Claims

Mechanisms2

Filters:× 15 of 25 match

Applied filters: Minimum readiness: R2 Demonstrated. Not set (Any): Prover, Verifier devices on site, Prover cooperation, Chips, Attack testing, Keep hidden from the verifier.

Analysis

Applied filters: Minimum readiness: R2 Demonstrated. Not set (Any): Prover, Verifier devices on site, Prover cooperation, Chips, Attack testing, Keep hidden from the verifier.

MechanismReadinessOpen flaws
Sampled inference recomputation R33 significant1 minor
Deterministic and bit-exact inference R31 significant1 minor
  • Open flaws: n critical n significant n minor
Claim coverageNo claims yet

Add claims to see which ones the mechanisms address.

Properties2 in production · 2 built for an adversarial prover
In production
Attack testing2 mechanisms with published testing

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

Limits2 mechanisms with open significant findings
Open significant flaws
4 flaws in 2 mechanisms
  • Tolerance for numerical noise leaves a covert channel in Sampled inference recomputation

    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. 1 9 12

    Demonstrated attack · Significant · Open. On the record

    Related mechanism R3 Deterministic and bit-exact inference: Bit-exact inference would remove the numerical tolerance if exact replay can be deployed with the required weights and configuration. A pointer, not evidence that this flaw is mitigated. In the proposal.

  • Only recorded traffic is checked in Sampled inference recomputation

    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. 1 13

    Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

    Related mechanism R1 Network taps and certifiers: 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. A pointer, not evidence that this flaw is mitigated. Add

  • Some inference optimizations are not covered in Sampled inference recomputation

    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. 2 3

    Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

  • Cross-hardware replay relies on reverse-engineered, closed behaviour in Deterministic and bit-exact inference

    Emulating one GPU's rounding on another requires reverse-engineering tensor-core arithmetic and modelling proprietary kernel choices. Hawkeye covers a subset of NVIDIA architectures and states that attention and other higher-level operations need further reverse engineering. For the bit-exact emulator, a proprietary Hopper kernel family is an open edge case. 12 16

    Open question · Significant · Open. On the record

Open minor flaws
2 mechanisms with minor findings
  • Mixed hardware widens the honest baseline in Sampled inference recomputation

    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. 2

    Open question · Minor · Open. On the record

  • Some kernels remain genuinely nondeterministic in Deterministic and bit-exact inference

    The bit-exact work separates kernels that are deterministic but not batch-invariant from truly nondeterministic ones that use atomic functions. Some integer de-quantization kernels use atomic additions and remain nondeterministic, so exact replay needs backends that avoid them. 12

    Open question · Minor · Open. On the record

Possible additions1 for open flaws · 1 for dependencies

Mechanisms on the map that are not in the proposal. Pointers, not recommendations.

  • Excluded by filters: readiness R1

    • 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.
Dependencies9 blockers
Blockers
9 blockers recorded
  • 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 24
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
  • Deterministic and bit-exact inference
    • Batch-invariant kernels cost throughput: in Thinking Machines' Qwen3-8B test, an improved deterministic build took 42 s against 26 s for vLLM's default, and SGLang reports an average 34.35% slowdown on its FlashInfer and FlashAttention 3 backends. Performance & compatibility 15 17
    • Coverage is incomplete: the bit-exact emulator targets dense blocks on NVIDIA GPUs and excludes mixture-of-experts inference and training, and vLLM's batch-invariant mode is in beta, with open work on AMD hardware and speculative decoding. Performance & compatibility 12 18 25
    • Amodo's status page for the AI 2040 verification plan rates a reproducible inference stack for that plan as 'not started'. Performance & compatibility 8
    • Exact replay requires the prover to disclose weights, software versions, parallelism and batch sizes to whoever recomputes. Privacy & leakage 12 14
What the verifier sees2 depend on design

From the family or selected implementation's record.

Inputs and outputs

Depends on the design for Sampled inference recomputation and Deterministic and bit-exact inference.

Exposure notes
  • Sampled inference recomputation: 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. 2 13 14
  • Deterministic and bit-exact inference: Exact replay needs the weights, configuration and replayed requests inside the recomputation environment. What the verifier sees depends on whether that environment keeps them confidential. 12 14
Implementations7 systems
Sampled inference recomputation
Deterministic and bit-exact inference
Sources25 cited
  1. Verifying LLM Inference to Detect Model Weight Exfiltration, R. Rinberg et al. (2025). Original
  2. DiFR: Inference Verification Despite Nondeterminism, A. Karvonen et al. (2025). Original
  3. TOPLOC: A Locality Sensitive Hashing Scheme for Trustless Verifiable Inference, J. M. Ong et al. (2025). Original
  4. PrimeIntellect-ai/toploc (GitHub repository), Prime Intellect (2025). Original
  5. INTELLECT-2: A Reasoning Model Trained Through Globally Decentralized Reinforcement Learning, Prime Intellect Team et al. (2025). Original
  6. adamkarvonen/difr (GitHub repository), A. Karvonen (2025). Original
  7. Scaling Recomputation Inference Verification, Amodo Design (2026). Original
  8. AI 2040 Plan A — Verification SITREP, Amodo Design (2026). Original
  9. Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification, N. Kezins (2026). Original
  10. SYNTHETIC-2 Release: Four Million Collaboratively Generated Reasoning Traces, Prime Intellect (2025). Original
  11. An Inference Verification Prototype — Stage 1, Amodo Design (2026). Original
  12. Bit-Exact AI Inference Verification Without Performance Tradeoffs, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
  13. Example Schemes for Verifying High-Stakes AI Agreements, Amodo Design (2026). Original
  14. A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
  15. Defeating Nondeterminism in LLM Inference, H. He & Thinking Machines Lab (2025). Original
  16. Hawkeye: Reproducing GPU-Level Non-Determinism, E. Badash et al. (2026). Original
  17. Towards Deterministic Inference in SGLang and Reproducible RL Training, The SGLang Team (2025). Original
  18. Batch Invariance (vLLM documentation), vLLM project (2026). Original
  19. gensyn-ai/ree: Gensyn Reproducible Execution Environment (GitHub repository), Gensyn (2026). Original
  20. EigenCloud Brings Verifiable AI to Mass Market with EigenAI and EigenCompute Launches, EigenCloud (2025). Original
  21. Building Delphi: Pricing, Settlement, and Agentic Trading, D. Jedamski (2026). Original
  22. Reproducible Execution Environment (REE) (Gensyn documentation), Gensyn (2026). Original
  23. What is Delphi? (Delphi documentation), Gensyn (2026). Original
  24. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). Original
  25. [Feature]: Batch Invariant Feature and Performance Optimization (vLLM issue #27433), vLLM project contributors (2025). Original

Share the link to this proposal. This proposal is also available as plain text and JSON.

Filter mechanisms

Filters apply to mechanisms only. They describe the setting a proposal is for, and all are off by default. A mechanism that a filter rules out is flagged and does not count towards claim coverage. Selected implementations use their own record fields. A match means not excluded; conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note. Passing a filter does not establish that the assumptions hold in a deployment.

15 of 25 mechanisms match · Clear all

Prover

How far can the party being checked be trusted?

The prover is the party being checked. Semi-trusted designs rely on part of its stack: usually the chip vendor's hardware root of trust, its firmware or counters, or its supply-chain records. Adversarial designs aim to hold even if it cheats wherever the checks allow, within their stated assumptions.

Keeps mechanisms whose threat model holds against at least this prover. Adversarial is the strongest assumption. Definitions

Verifier devices on site

May the verifier install its own hardware at the prover's sites?

Some mechanisms need a device the verifier owns or trusts at the prover's facility, such as a network tap, a bandwidth limiter or a sealed sensor. Choose Not allowed when the setting rules that out. Inspectors are not covered.

"Not allowed" removes mechanisms that need a retrofit device, such as a network tap or a sealed sensor. Definitions

Prover cooperation

How much must the prover take part?

Required: the prover takes part, for example by logging requests, producing proofs or opening records. Partial: some access, such as installing a device. Not required: works from outside, such as satellite imagery.

"Partial at most" removes mechanisms that need the prover's active participation. "Not required" keeps only those that work without it. Definitions

Chips

May the proposal depend on new chip designs?

New chip features take years to reach a deployed fleet and cover only chips made after they ship. Mechanisms that use shipping features, such as trusted execution environments or performance counters, stay.

"Existing chips only" removes mechanisms that need changes to future chip designs. Definitions

Minimum readiness

How mature must each mechanism be?

A level describes the public evidence for a mechanism's stated use, not its cost or feasibility. R3 can still have open critical flaws.

Keeps mechanisms whose readiness level is at least this one. Definitions

Attack testing

How hard has each mechanism been attacked in public?

The strongest published attempt to break the mechanism for its verification use: a security analysis, red-teaming by its developers or collaborators, or a red team independent of them.

Keeps mechanisms whose strongest published attack testing is at least this. Definitions

Keep hidden from the verifier

What must the verifier never see? Choose any.

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.

Removes mechanisms that show the asset to the verifier. Conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note and needs checking against the privacy requirement.

Claims

A claim is something one party wants to verify about another party's AI hardware or software. Each claim's number shows how the proposal addresses it.

  • Addressed. A mechanism in the proposal is aimed at this claim and is not excluded by the filters.
  • Partly addressed. Only supporting mechanisms, or mechanisms aimed at it that the filters exclude.
  • Unaddressed. No mechanism in the proposal addresses this claim.

Addressed means a mechanism in the proposal is aimed at the claim and is not excluded by your filters. It does not mean the claim is verified: check its assessed use, readiness, assumptions and open flaws.

All claims

Mechanisms

A mechanism is a general technique for verifying claims. Its badge is its readiness level for its stated use. An optional implementation choice narrows its assumptions, assessed use and claim links to that record. Lines join it to the claims it addresses. Click a line for details.Under its name it lists the claims it is aimed at or supports.

  • Aimed at the claim: verifying it is a direct purpose of the mechanism.
  • Supports the claim: helps verify it without being aimed at it.
  • Faint: excluded by your filters, so it does not count towards claim coverage.

All mechanisms

Overview

One row per mechanism in the proposal. Every mark comes from that mechanism's record, as listed in the panels below; what the verifier sees is the editors' reading of the record's text. Flaw counts are per mechanism. Summary counts name mechanisms with open findings, not a sum of attacks. Choosing an implementation narrows each row to that record's assessed use; family findings remain as context.

What the verifier sees

For model weights, inputs and outputs, and training data. This is the editors' reading of each mechanism's record (its threat model, how it works and its limitations), not a field of the record. Shown: the verifier sees it. Depends: on the design or variant, or the verifier sees only samples. Hidden: the verifier sees only commitments, hashes, proofs or results. Not involved: the record does not handle it. Unspecified: the selected implementation has no asset-specific assessment here.

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. They are pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and flaws, and none is claimed to close a flaw. Links from flaws are the editors' reading of the two records.

Start from a published design

Choosing a design loads the mechanisms its record realises or depends on. If the proposal has no claims yet, it also loads the claims that record says the design addresses.

Search

Full search page