mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

zkDL: Efficient Zero-Knowledge Proofs of Deep Learning Training

arXiv 2307.16273 ↗First posted 30 Jul 2023cs.LG cs.CRcited by 20

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The recent advancements in deep learning have brought about significant changes in various aspects of people's lives. Meanwhile, these rapid developments have raised concerns about the legitimacy of the training process of deep neural networks. To protect the intellectual properties of AI developers, directly examining the training process by accessing the model parameters and training data is often prohibited for verifiers. In response to this challenge, we present zero-knowledge deep learning (zkDL), an efficient zero-knowledge proof for deep learning training. To address the long-standing challenge of verifiable computations of non-linearities in deep learning training, we introduce zkReLU, a specialized proof for the ReLU activation and its backpropagation. zkReLU turns the disadvantage of non-arithmetic relations into an advantage, leading to the creation of FAC4DNN, our specialized arithmetic circuit design for modelling neural networks. This design aggregates the proofs over different layers and training steps, without being constrained by their sequential order in the training process. With our new CUDA implementation that achieves full compatibility with the tensor structures and the aggregated proof design, zkDL enables the generation of complete and sound proofs in less than a second per batch update for an 8-layer neural network with 10M parameters and a batch size of 64, while provably ensuring the privacy of data and model parameters. To our best knowledge, we are not aware of any existing work on zero-knowledge proof of deep learning training that is scalable to million-size networks.

Key facts. Cited by 20 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jul 2023.

Builds on

26 of 58 references.

References · 26

  1. 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,221
  2. 2021Membership Inference Attacks From First Principlescited by 839
  3. 2019Certified Data Removal from Machine Learning Modelscited by 512
  4. 2018ML-Leaks: Model and Data Independent Membership Inference Attacks and Defenses on Machine Learning Modelscited by 475
  5. 2020Systematic Evaluation of Privacy Risks of Machine Learning Modelscited by 273
  6. 2019White-box vs Black-box: Bayes Optimal Strategies for Membership Inferencecited by 265
  7. 2021Enhanced Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 237
  8. 2019MemGuard: Defending against Black-Box Membership Inference Attacks via Adversarial Examplescited by 183
  9. 2018Machine Learning with Membership Privacy using Adversarial Regularizationcited by 177
  10. 2021On the Importance of Difficulty Calibration in Membership Inference Attackscited by 137
  11. 2020Revisiting Membership Inference Under Realistic Assumptionscited by 108
  12. 2021Proof-of-Learning: Definitions and Practicecited by 81
14 more
  1. 2019Differentially Private Model Publishing for Deep Learningcited by 69
  2. 2017SafetyNets: Verifiable Execution of Deep Neural Networks on an Untrusted Cloudcited by 50
  3. 2020Towards Probabilistic Verification of Machine Unlearningcited by 46
  4. 2022VeriFi: Towards Verifiable Federated Unlearningcited by 41
  5. 2022Scaling up Trustless DNN Inference with Zero-Knowledge Proofscited by 30
  6. 2019VeriML: Enabling Integrity Assurances and Fair Payments for Machine Learning as a Servicecited by 26
  7. 2022Verifiable and Provably Secure Machine Unlearningcited by 24
  8. 2022pvCNN: Privacy-Preserving and Verifiable Convolutional Neural Network Testingcited by 20
  9. 2020On Polynomial Approximations for Privacy-Preserving and Verifiable ReLU Networkscited by 19
  10. 2021"Adversarial Examples" for Proof-of-Learningcited by 19
  11. 2013Time-Optimal Interactive Proofs for Circuit Evaluationcited by 14
  12. 2022Proof of Unlearning: Definitions and Instantiationcited by 11
  13. 2022ezDPS: An Efficient and Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning Inference Pipelinecited by 10
  14. 2017A Zero Knowledge Sumcheck and its Applicationscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 6; 2025: 8; 2026: 6.

20 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025A Survey of Zero-Knowledge Proof Based Verifiable Machine Learningcited by 21
  2. 2024Verifiable evaluations of machine learning models using zkSNARKscited by 14
  3. 2024Trustless Audits without Revealing Data or Modelscited by 14
  4. 2025FairZK: A Scalable System to Prove Machine Learning Fairness in Zero-Knowledgecited by 5
  5. 2024Model Agnostic Hybrid Sharding For Heterogeneous Distributed Inferencecited by 2
  6. 2024Influence-based Attributions can be Manipulatedcited by 2
  7. 2024Towards Understanding and Enhancing Security of Proof-of-Training for DNN Model Ownership Verificationcited by 2
  8. 2025Verifiable Fine-Tuning for LLMs: Zero-Knowledge Training Proofs Bound to Data Provenance and Policycited by 2
  9. 2026Zero knowledge verification for frontier AI training is possiblecited by 2
  10. 2024Towards Secure and Private AI: A Framework for Decentralized Inferencecited by 1
  11. 2025A Framework for Cryptographic Verifiability of End-to-End AI Pipelinescited by 1
  12. 2025ZK-APEX: Zero-Knowledge Approximate Personalized Unlearning with Executable Proofscited by 1
8 more
  1. 2025Verifiable Unlearning on Edgecited by 0
  2. 2025VeriLoRA: Fine-Tuning Large Language Models with Verifiable Security via Zero-Knowledge Proofscited by 0
  3. 2025Fortytwo: Swarm Inference with Peer-Ranked Consensuscited by 0
  4. 2026ZKBoost: Zero-Knowledge Verifiable Training for XGBoostcited by 0
  5. 2026OVIG: Optimistic Verification of AI Training Integrity via Gradient Signalscited by 0
  6. 2026Certification of Machine Learning Models via Directional Sharpnesscited by 0
  7. 2026Certified in Theory, Broken in Practice: Assumption Gaps in Cryptographic Model Certificationcited by 0
  8. 2026Training Witnesses: Trusting the Training without Trusting the Trainercited by 0