arXiv:2607. 03561v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI models continue to develop powerful capabilities, it becomes critical that we are able to verify that their output is aligned with our intentions.
By Liyan Chen, Yael Tauman Kalai, Zoe Xi
arXiv:2603. 25414v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A prevailing assumption in machine learning is that model correctness must be enforced after the fact.
By Houston Haynes
arXiv:2608. 16438v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In a world where valuable artifacts are increasingly created, completed, or processed by LLMs, the central economic question is not only what the LLM can produce, but what \emph{value} remains in the inputs (i.
By Rafael Pass
arXiv:2607. 15528v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Following Goldwasser, Rothblum, Shafer, and Yehudayoff, who defined a framework for interactive proofs of learning [ITCS'21], we initiate the study of non-interactive proofs of learning.
By Michael Ngo, Michael P. Kim
arXiv:2603. 18046v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We present NanoZK, a zero-knowledge proof system for verifiable LLM inference: clients and third-party auditors check that a provider executed the advertised model on a committed input without learning weights or activations.
By Zhaohui Wang
arXiv:2606. 26418v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A non-agentic "oracle" AI that estimates probabilities of future events faces a self-reference problem: once its answer is learned and acted upon, it can change the very probability it was asked to report.
By Jobst Heitzig