ai platform operators

Abstract: When an autonomous AI agent does something consequential, what can be proven about what it did? Agent-observability platforms capture traces, but a trace is mutable: alterable undetected, with no recipe for re-executing it, silent on whether captured secrets were removed. Regulation (EU AI Act, ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF) presumes records an independent party can check. We present NovaFabric, producing audit-grade execution evidence: provider-neutral, tamper-evident, replayable, shareable. It records an agent run, without modifying agent logic, into a portable Run Capsule (fifteen-entity schema), sealed with a holistic DSSE signature, RFC 3161 timestamp, Merkle log and redaction attestation. Sealed runs are re-executable under a four-mode replay protocol and exportable as an Evidence Bundle for third-party verification with stock tooling (specified, not evaluated). The contribution is integration, not new cryptography: OpenTelemetry, DSSE/in-toto and W3C PROV. We evaluate eight research questions at measured scope. Mocked replay serves every model response from the capsule (no live model call, 10/10) but is offline w.r.t. models, not the network; only 2/10 tool-using workloads completed; the gap is missing tool-response substitution. Tampering is rejected across three tested classes. Declared-stream completeness is 0.652 (95% CI +/-0.064, ten scenarios). A repaired rule pack redacts 14/14 credential types, preserving 9/9 decoys; diff localises 140/140 mutations. Blast-radius queries: 45.5ms p99 over 10M edges (3.3x faster than a columnar baseline), 167.9ms over 100M (1 client, n=30). A 314-machine, ten-region run finds capsule REST ingest lossless but capped at 61.6 req/s (p99 26.8s) by per-worker serialisation. Six defects found in NovaFabric and its evaluation corpus: four fixed, one withdrawn, one open. Verification is conditional on a stated trusted computing base.

Abstract: Large language models are often fine-tuned, shared, or downloaded from third parties, so a deployed model may carry a hidden backdoor that behaves normally on benign inputs but switches to attacker-controlled behavior when a secret trigger appears. While backdoors can be audited before deployment, runtime monitoring remains important for models that are frequently updated. The challenge is that LLM serving is latency-sensitive: existing inference-time detectors either rely on assumptions about the trigger form, which can fail on stealthy attacks, or require extra model computation, such as input perturbations or an additional generation pass. We introduce SpecGuard, an inference-time backdoor detector that repurposes speculative decoding at zero added model-computation cost. Speculative decoding speeds up inference by using a small draft model to propose tokens and a target model to verify them. We observe that this verification process already exposes a useful signal: when a backdoor is triggered, the target model shifts toward the attacker's behavior, while a clean draft model does not predict this shift, causing the draft-token acceptance rate to change. We formalize when this signal appears and show that an attacker who suppresses it must also weaken the backdoor. Across diverse backdoor types and model families, SpecGuard reliably detects triggered behavior, including stealthy cases where input-level filters are blind, while avoiding the extra generation cost of existing runtime detectors. Speculative decoding therefore doubles as a free, always-on signal for detecting backdoored LLM behavior.

Abstract: AI-generated text is flowing back into the training corpora of the next generation of models. Recursive training on it drives model collapse, and recent work extends the setting to many models feeding one another -- but almost always with the market split evenly, while real generative AI is an oligopoly. Concentration raises two worries: fewer, more uniform sources may make collapse faster, and later models may be dragged toward the oligarch's output. We test both in controlled ecosystems: 13 open 1--4B models form natural ecosystems of 3 to 13 players, plus an injected probe that pushes the top share to 90%; each generation, every model's output is mixed into a shared pool by market share and every model is retrained on that pool from clean base weights, for five generations. Yet within the range we test, neither worry materializes; what emerges instead is an invariance. Making the split more unequal barely changes the speed of collapse. Destinations move even less: the share and identity knobs shift five-generation endpoints by only a few percent of the drift common to all arms -- the ecosystems collapse to nearly the same place. An extreme share paired with the strongest injected bias still does not guarantee steering, and the topic shifts it does produce leave only a faint trace on the ruler that measures collapse. What sets the speed is who supplies the pool and how readily those suppliers are carried along: with every share held fixed, swapping the members of a K=3 ecosystem changes five-generation drift by 2.8x; a share-weighted index of each member's susceptibility explains the speed differences across nineteen arms with R^2 = 0.68; and replacing half the pool with human text roughly halves drift without changing its course. Within the tested range, concentration sets neither the destination nor the pace of collapse; the pace follows whose text fills the pool.

Abstract: Compute governance today is a governance of training: the thresholds, reporting requirements, and frontier-AI regimes now in force attach to training compute and treat the trained model as the regulatory unit. That picture is incomplete: capability increasingly migrates to the deployment stage through inference-time scaling, agentic scaffolding, and compression onto consumer hardware. This paper asks which mechanisms are available once the regulatory object shifts from the training run to the inference call. We develop a feasibility taxonomy of twenty inference-time mechanisms across monitoring, verification, and enforcement, each rated on a four-point readiness scale against a documented four-vendor evidence base. We then stress the taxonomy against a two-dimensional adversary model (three capability tiers crossed with four adversary roles) and map each mechanism to four governance scenarios (domestic regulation, bilateral or multilateral coordination, industry self-regulation, and compute-marketplace governance). Fifteen of the twenty mechanisms have commercial technical substrates in production today, although governance-grade assurance and adversarial robustness vary substantially. The adversary analysis shows that this readiness holds only against a cooperative deployer and a low-to-medium-capability user: no mechanism rates adequate against a high-capability state-level deployer, and fine-tuning removes the model-internal components of the enforcement cluster, although platform-external controls can persist. A substitution analysis connects the taxonomy to a companion hardware paper as a conditional substitution principle describing when inference-stage and hardware-stage mechanisms provide comparable regulatory coverage under stated conditions. A second-rater reliability check on a random subset of the readiness ratings returned a quadratic-weighted Cohen's kappa of 0.74.