Research / Sources
Research preprints from the scientific community. arxiv.org
Proposes 5G CATS, a 5G-based location certification system that verifies where AI accelerators operate to support export-control enforcement, and reports simulated results against relay attacks.
Proposes detecting large AI training runs from datacentre power draw via Viterbi tracking of iteration cadence, showing it is robust to most operator hiding strategies and useful for compute verification under AI governance agreements.
Derives a bound on how much hidden computation power-draw measurements can exclude for frontier AI compute agreements, finding analogue channels alone weak but useful when combined with re-execution.
Assesses whether underwater data centers could enable covert frontier AI training that evades treaty verification, finding them feasible only for well-resourced states and detectable via construction signatures and surveillance.
Proposes a feasibility taxonomy of twenty inference-time governance mechanisms, rated for readiness and stress-tested against adversary models and governance scenarios, finding no mechanism adequate against high-capability state-level deployers.
Proposes near-term verification mechanisms for AI chip export controls, covering chip location, end-user legitimacy and prohibited end-use, implementable within the US BIS framework using private-sector auditors.
Shows an external power-draw side channel can identify AI training versus inference on an H200 GPU for compute governance, and a hardened detector still catches most evasion attempts.
Analyzes how international restrictions on frontier AI research toward superintelligence could be verified, cataloguing 28 candidate verification mechanisms such as whistleblowers, search warrants and training code reviews.
Argues that frontier AI models have become decisive cyber-offense tools, that access to them is gated by a small group of developers, and that Africa must respond through threat-intelligence sharing and governance within a six-to-twelve-month window.
Evaluates whether GPU telemetry can detect hidden ML training under adversarial evasion, testing a classifier against 20 evasion strategies to support compute governance verification.
Proposes a taxonomy for assessing enforceability of international frontier AI agreements, identifying enforcement breaking points as compute thresholds fall and finding gaps in resource acquisition and detection policies.
Proposes zero-knowledge proofs, Merkle commitments and ex-ante attestations to verify frontier AI training runs for governance, and argues global training budgets are more robust than per-run FLOP caps.
Shows that LLM inference on GPUs is deterministic enough to re-compute bit-exactly without performance-costly flags, even across different GPU hardware, so rounding errors can serve as an auditable signature for verifying AI workloads under governance.
Examines whether distributed training could let frontier AI developers evade compute governance monitoring and registration, and proposes countermeasures such as chip tracking and thresholds.
Compares EU, US and Chinese AI regulations for high-risk uses, identifies interoperability and cross-regime compliance gaps, and proposes machine-checkable RDF/OWL compliance artefacts.
Proposes a hardware-rooted runtime enforcement architecture for agentic AI combining constrained decoding, TEEs and policy sync, with bounded TLA+ checks showing no non-compliant actions in the modelled state space.
Position paper arguing frontier AI governance must go beyond model-level controls, since inference, scaffolding and restricted-asset gains undermine pre-deployment evaluation, and proposing system, entity, agent and cloud governance plus societal resilience.
Argues that restricting open-weight AI model access may displace risk, and proposes hardware-layer attestation plus multilateral institutions as a defense-in-depth alternative to binary openness-versus-restriction governance.
Proposes a feasibility taxonomy of 20 hardware-level mechanisms for governing frontier AI compute, mapping them to regulatory and treaty scenarios and identifying the R&D gaps that block verifiable agreements.
Proposes a multi-agent LLM orchestration framework with RAG and LLM-as-judge sub-agents that scores agent decisions for sovereignty, carbon, compliance and ethics, and reports improved coherence and reduced hallucination.
Position paper arguing technical governance researchers should study token taxes on AI inference to mitigate economic risks, proposing a staged audit pipeline for enforcement and a research roadmap.
Proposes GPU timing and memory-based telemetry primitives that reveal compute utilization without trusted firmware, to support post-deployment compute governance and accountability for AI training.
Shows that capabilities once requiring frontier compute now run on consumer hardware, so harm campaigns are feasible at low cost, and argues compute-based AI governance leaves serious security gaps.
Argues that compute thresholds misjudge AI weaponization risk, proposes an intent-and-capability definition grounded in international humanitarian law, and outlines live benchmarks across data, algorithms and compute.
Proposes an international US-China agreement capping AI training scale via FLOP thresholds and chip tracking to prevent premature superintelligence development, arguing it is technically sufficient but politically unlikely.
Maps 775 non-U.S. data center projects by operator nationality, finding U.S. firms run 48% by investment value, and argues operators offer a lever for governing AI compute beyond export controls.
Proposes six largely independent verification approaches, including chip security features, attached monitoring devices and whistleblower programs, for states to verify compliance with international rules on frontier AI development.
Outlines technical interventions, such as hardware and verification mechanisms, that could let governments coordinate a halt on dangerous AI development and deployment, and how they support governance plans.
Catalogues 36 pretraining algorithmic innovations from Llama 3 and DeepSeek-V3 and estimates their compute needs, finding that even strict compute caps would still allow half of them.
Distinguishes distributed from decentralised AI training and analyses how these low-communication setups could undermine compute governance, detectability, and shutdownability, while noting policy levers like export controls remain relevant.
Proposes four governance institutions for frontier AI built on compute governance: domestic regulation, an IAEA-style agency, a chip non-proliferation treaty, and an allied public-private training megaproject.
Proposes a global compute governance framework, a 'Compute Pause Button', using tamper-proof FLOP caps, chip traceability and export controls to prevent training of dangerously powerful AI systems.
Surveys verification mechanisms that would let countries check compliance with international AI development agreements aimed at reducing catastrophic risks, using three example policy goals.
Report analyzes how flexible hardware-enabled guarantees could support international AI governance on proliferation, loss of control, military AI, and strategic stability, with game-theoretic stability analysis.
Proposes flexible hardware-enabled guarantees, a tamper-protected open-source processor integrated with AI accelerators, to enable privacy-preserving verification and enforcement of frontier AI governance claims.
Proposes flexHEG, a hardware-integrated Guarantee Processor and secure enclosure that verifies compute usage in frontier AI development, and analyses technical implementation options for it.
Uses nanoGPT experiments and a Compute-Equivalent Gain metric to argue that compute restrictions alone cannot stop algorithmic capability gains, so AI oversight should also address algorithmic research.
Forecasts how many foundation models will exceed EU AI Act and US AI Diffusion compute thresholds by 2028, finding superlinear growth in counts under absolute thresholds and a steadier trend under relative ones.
Reviews proposals for international AI safety agreements and recommends a conditional treaty with compute thresholds, mandatory audits, and AISI oversight with authority to pause development.
Argues that shifting from pre-training to inference compute would reshape frontier AI governance, weakening open-weight importance and training-compute thresholds, with ambiguous effects depending on where the inference compute is used.