mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Optimistic Verifiable Training by Controlling Hardware Nondeterminism

arXiv 2403.09603 ↗First posted 14 Mar 2024cs.CR cs.AI cs.LGcited by 7

On the map: LLM safety and security → Prompt injection and agent security

Abstract (arXiv)

The increasing compute demands of AI systems have led to the emergence of services that train models on behalf of clients lacking necessary resources. However, ensuring correctness of training and guarding against potential training-time attacks, such as data poisoning and backdoors, poses challenges. Existing works on verifiable training largely fall into two classes: proof-based systems, which are difficult to scale, and ``optimistic'' methods that consider a third-party auditor who can replicate the training process and contest the trainer. A key challenge with the latter is that nondeterminism between GPU types during training prevents exact replication of the training process, resulting in schemes that are non-robust. We propose a method that combines training in a higher precision than the target, rounding after intermediate computations, and sharing rounding decisions based on an adaptive thresholding procedure, to successfully control for nondeterminism. Across three different NVIDIA GPUs (A40, Titan XP, RTX 2080 Ti), we achieve exact training replication at FP32 precision for both full-training and fine-tuning of ResNet-50 (23M) and GPT-2 (117M) models. Our verifiable training scheme significantly decreases the storage and time costs compared to proof-based systems, and is publicly released at https://github.com/meghabyte/verifiable-training.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 15 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Mar 2024.

Builds on

15 of 43 references.

References · 15

  1. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,267
  2. 2024Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingcited by 478
  3. 2023Poisoning Language Models During Instruction Tuningcited by 254
  4. 2021On the Necessity of Auditable Algorithmic Definitions for Machine Unlearningcited by 164
  5. 2022Compute Trends Across Three Eras of Machine Learningcited by 161
  6. 2018Stronger Data Poisoning Attacks Break Data Sanitization Defensescited by 125
  7. 2021Proof-of-Learning: Definitions and Practicecited by 81
  8. 2021Randomness In Neural Network Training: Characterizing The Impact of Toolingcited by 57
  9. 2020An Empirical Analysis of Backward Compatibility in Machine Learning Systemscited by 38
  10. 2022Scaling up Trustless DNN Inference with Zero-Knowledge Proofscited by 30
  11. 2023Tools for Verifying Neural Models' Training Datacited by 21
  12. 2019A scalable verification solution for blockchainscited by 10
3 more
  1. 2020A Survey of Published Attacks on Intel SGXcited by 10
  2. 2022Dissecting Tensor Cores via Microbenchmarks: Latency, Throughput and Numeric Behaviorscited by 10
  3. 2023Can Membership Inferencing be Refuted?cited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 5.

7 papers.