mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Training Witnesses: Trusting the Training without Trusting the Trainer

arXiv 2609.33915 ↗First posted 27 Sep 2026cs.LG cs.CRcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Progress in machine learning cannot outpace our ability to verify it. With an explosion in papers today, every scientific claim rests initially on trust in the trainer, leading to uneven evaluation, baselines, and forestalling of reliable progress. Traditionally, the burden of verification falls on the reader, who must reproduce expensive training runs. This strategy is impractical due to an explosion in slop contributions, diversity of methods, and the sheer compute required. We put the burden of proof where it belongs, on the trainer, and in the process also cut the overall cost of verification significantly. We introduce Witnesses, a method for certifying training, data usage and evaluation in a neural network training run. Our key insight is that fast behavioral fingerprints with occasional replay challenges are sufficient for auditing neural network training. Our method is applicable at scale with minimal overhead to the trainer, is cheap for the verifier, rejects bad training runs with amplifiable probability, and allows for exact queries of both data inclusion and exclusion. We test our method on language model training runs from 100M to 2B scales, across DDP and FSDP, and demonstrate this minimal overhead. We also introduce a self-regulating leaderboard of "auto-certified" training runs that enables shared baselines and progress. We invite the community to participate in the leaderboard to improve reproducibility in machine learning.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2026.

Builds on

20 of 38 references.

References · 20

  1. 2019ZeRO: Memory Optimizations Toward Training Trillion Parameter Modelscited by 1,301
  2. 2021ZeRO-Offload: Democratizing Billion-Scale Model Trainingcited by 341
  3. 2021Dataset Inference: Ownership Resolution in Machine Learningcited by 116
  4. 2021Proof-of-Learning: Definitions and Practicecited by 84
  5. 2025Poisoning Attacks on LLMs Require a Near-constant Number of Poison Samplescited by 72
  6. 2022Verifiable and Provably Secure Machine Unlearningcited by 25
  7. 2023Tools for Verifying Neural Models' Training Datacited by 22
  8. 2023zkDL: Efficient Zero-Knowledge Proofs of Deep Learning Trainingcited by 20
  9. 2023Position: Key Claims in LLM Research Have a Long Tail of Footnotescited by 20
  10. 2026Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluationcited by 14
  11. 2025Blackbox Model Provenance via Palimpsestic Membership Inferencecited by 11
  12. 2025Independence Tests for Language Modelscited by 10
8 more
  1. 2024What Do Machine Learning Researchers Mean by "Reproducible"?cited by 9
  2. 2025Position: AI Competitions Provide the Gold Standard for Empirical Rigor in GenAI Evaluationcited by 8
  3. 2025Position: Machine Learning Conferences Should Establish a "Refutations and Critiques" Trackcited by 7
  4. 2025ZenFlow: Enabling Stall-Free Offloading for LLM Trainingcited by 5
  5. 2026Fingerprinting Deep Neural Networks for Ownership Protection: An Analytical Approachcited by 2
  6. 2026How to sketch a learning algorithmcited by 2
  7. 2026Zero knowledge verification for frontier AI training is possiblecited by 2
  8. 2024Practical offloading for fine-tuning LLM on commodity GPU via learned sparse projectorscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.