Proposal Explorer

Reset

A verification proposal from the AI Verification Tech Map, from its records of 2026-10-09. https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0001,M-0007&ready=R4&tested=analysis

Claims

Mechanisms2

Filters:×× 0 of 25 match · Clear

Applied filters: Legacy independent-evaluation filter: R4 (legacy); Attack testing: Published analysis. Not set (Any): Prover, Verifier devices on site, Prover cooperation, Chips, Keep hidden from the verifier.

Analysis

Applied filters: Legacy independent-evaluation filter: R4 (legacy); Attack testing: Published analysis. Not set (Any): Prover, Verifier devices on site, Prover cooperation, Chips, Keep hidden from the verifier.

MechanismDevelopmentSecurity evidenceOpen failures
Sampled inference recomputation ⚠ excluded by your filters: legacy evaluation filter Operational usePublished security analysis2 significant1 minor
Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting ⚠ excluded by your filters: legacy evaluation filter ProposedPublished security analysis1 significant
  • Open failures: n critical n significant n minor
  • ⚠ Dimmed: excluded by your filters, with the conflicting field highlighted
Claim coverageNo claims yet

Add claims to see which ones the mechanisms address.

PropertiesNone recorded
Attack testing2 mechanisms with published testing

Attack testing records published testing for this use. It does not by itself show independent review, a formal proof or that a deployed system is secure.

Limits2 scope limitations · 1 open question · 2 excluded by filters · 1 not yet demonstrated · 2 mechanisms with open significant failures
Excluded by your filters
Open significant failures
3 failures 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

    Known failure · Demonstrated attack · Significant · Open. On the record

    Related mechanism Operational use 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 failure 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

    Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

  • Known shortcuts let a miner claim somewhat more work than it did in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting

    Pearl's specification lists known mining speedups: crafted inputs, precision shortcuts, seed grinding, work reuse, and faster kernels or hardware. A policy check caps the summands a miner may skip at one-sixteenth of those in a tile. For capacity bounding, any gap between work proven and work possible leaves spare capacity. 18

    Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

Scope limitations
  • 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

    Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record

    Related mechanism Proposed 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 failure is mitigated. Add

  • Proves that work was done, not that no capacity remains in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting

    Proof-of-work accounting bounds unmonitored compute only relative to an estimate of what the actor has. Attestable states that the verifier "needs a credible estimate of the compute available" to the actor, and that a proof "cannot discover a datacenter that was never declared". 15

    Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record

    Related mechanism Proposed Chip registries and manufacturing records: A registry of chips is one basis for the estimate of available compute that the flaw's source says the verifier needs. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add

    Related mechanism Proposed Remote detection of data centres: Looks for data centres that were never declared, which a proof cannot discover. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add

Open questions
  • Security rests on new hardness assumptions in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting

    Komargodski and Weinstein base security on hardness assumptions about batches of low-rank random linear equations, and list PoUW "from more standard or well-studied assumptions" as an open problem. Pearl's floating-point variant introduces a further "quantized-subspace hardness" assumption. 17 18

    Open question · Open question. On the record

Open minor failures
1 mechanism with minor failures
  • 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

    Known failure · Open question · Minor · Open. On the record

Possible additions1 for open failures · 1 for dependencies

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

  • Excluded by filters: legacy evaluation filter

    • Bears on the open significant failure “Tolerance for numerical noise leaves a covert channel” in Sampled inference recomputation. Bit-exact inference would remove the numerical tolerance if exact replay can be deployed with the required weights and configuration.
  • Excluded by filters: legacy evaluation filter

    • 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.
Dependencies8 blockers
Blockers
8 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 20
    • 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
  • Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting
    • Bounding spare capacity needs a credible estimate of the compute available to the actor, including third-party access. Capacity bounds 15
    • Proofs of work cannot find facilities that were never declared. Coverage & hidden compute 15
    • As of September 2026 no implementation, demonstration or independent evaluation of proofs of work for capacity bounding has been published. Adversarial validation
What the verifier sees2 depend on design

From the family or selected implementation's record.

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
  • Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting: Checking a sampled tile of a matrix multiplication reveals that tile, which may hold model or input data; the authors suggest a zero-knowledge proof when the matrices must stay private.
Implementations6 systems
Sampled inference recomputation
Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting
Sources20 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. Pacing AI Requires Proof, Attestable (2026). Original
  16. Mechanisms to Verify International Agreements About AI Development, A. Scher & L. Thiergart (2025). Original
  17. Proofs of Useful Work from Arbitrary Matrix Multiplication, I. Komargodski & O. Weinstein (2025). Original
  18. Pearl Floating Point Scheme Specification, Pearl Research Team (2026). Original
  19. pearl: Monorepo for the Pearl network, Pearl Research Labs (2026). Original
  20. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). 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.

0 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

Legacy independent-evaluation filter

Development status

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

Exact legacy code: R4. 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, development status, security evidence, assumptions and findings.

All claims

Mechanisms

A mechanism is a general technique for verifying claims. Its badge is its development status 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. Failure counts are per mechanism. Summary counts name mechanisms with open failures, not a sum of attacks. Choosing an implementation narrows each row to that record's assessed use; family findings remain as context. Findings are grouped as known failures, scope limitations and open questions. Only known failures count as failures. Counts are an inventory of published findings, not a risk score.

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 failure or a dependency. They are pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and findings, and none is claimed to close a failure. Links from failures 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