arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2609.00309

Workload Identification with Physical Side Channels for AI Governance

Abstract

AI compute verification is one of the first tangible and tractable points for international policy aimed at AI governance. Determining whether frontier labs, or any operator, comply with agreements requires the regulating authority to discern how their compute is used. The elementary building block of AI compute is the GPU, and any activity it executes leaves a physical trace. Here, we show that an external observer can identify the class of the workload running on an NVIDIA H200 from its power draw. Unlike on-chip NVML telemetry, which can be spoofed or replayed, such a physical channel can in principle be observed independently of operator cooperation. We recorded $930$ five-second traces at $\sim 10$ MHz, covering seventeen open LLM families and twenty-five non-AI workloads. Over this corpus we separate training from inference and from non-AI computation with an accuracy of $97\%$ and a macro-averaged F1 score of $0.955$, evaluated on model families unseen during training. AI workload spectral content predominantly lies below $\sim 20$kHz and training is particularly recognizable through the memory-bound optimizer update. The GPU operator is then treated as adversarial and able to reshape the physical computation itself. Four evasion strategies are tested to disguise training as inference, producing an additional 680 adversarial traces. A detector hardened against evasion strategies, with the tested strategy held out, catches training $\geq 99\%$ of the time for three of the four strategies. The fourth, diluted low-rank adaptation (LoRA), is detected $48$--$88\%$ of the time with a hardened classifier, rising to $\geq 98\%$ with an additional rescue rule. While these attacks are not a comprehensive evaluation against adversarial behaviour, they offer initial insights beyond genuine activities and a dataset for developing and testing stronger evasion mechanisms.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Simone Gargiulo, Gabriel Kulp. 2026-08-31. Workload Identification with Physical Side Channels for AI Governance. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00309

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Effective Interventions Against AI-Enhanced Scams

In 2025, scams were responsible for an estimated $442 billion in direct losses globally. In the United States, reported losses increased by nearly 400% between 2020 and 2025. Though AI in scamming is a relatively new phenomenon, its use significantly changes the economics of scams as well as the bottlenecks in scam operations. In this paper I investigate what interventions will remain effective under this new AI-driven scamming regime. I develop a simple model of scam profits to understand how different interventions asymptotically affect scam operations. I find that three levers--reporting rate, centralization of reporting, and report accuracy--multiply in their effect on expected victims per scam channel, reducing revenue per scam channel while increasing costs. Because effects multiply, interventions affecting all three could have a significant effect on the profitability of the scam business model. My analysis suggests that even modest reporting rates against high-value scam infrastructure could have significant impacts on scam profitability.

cs.CR

The Five Safes as a Privacy Context

The Five Safes is a framework used by national statistical offices (NSO) for assessing and managing the disclosure risk of data sharing. It can be understood as a specialization of a broader concept--contextual integrity--to the situation of statistical dissemination by an NSO. We demonstrate this by mapping the five parameters of contextual integrity onto the five dimensions of the Five Safes. We also discuss how each of these two theories can address weaknesses in the other, thereby strengthening them both.

cs.CR

Can escalation channels redirect reward hacking toward defect disclosure?

When coding agents encounter defective test infrastructure they may reward-hack: hardcoding outputs or editing test files to pass tests they cannot legitimately satisfy, a pattern that has now appeared outside benchmarks, in a coordinated multi-agent intrusion of a major AI platform's production infrastructure. The same capability that lets an agent detect and exploit a defect could let it report one, given the right decision environment. We evaluate escalation channels, structured reporting tools available to the agent at the point of conflict, as a decision-environment intervention that both reduces reward hacking and surfaces the infrastructure defects that trigger it. A $2 \times 2$ factorial separates the contributions of an escalation tool, a standalone anti-reward-hacking policy, and their combination. Across 8 frontier models spanning 5 families, the combined intervention reduces reward hacking from 23.6% to 5.3% (mixed-effects logistic OR = 9.2, 95% CI 5.0--16.8, $p < 10^{-12}$) with no detectable cost or performance overhead, eliminating it entirely for 6 of 8 models. Escalation and hacking are near-perfectly mutually exclusive, with 98.7% of escalations involving no hacking (100% under the combined intervention). Beyond reduction, escalation channels function as diagnostic infrastructure: on top of monitoring, escalation adds +10.1 percentage points of defect detection coverage and is more accurate once it fires (99.4% vs 85.8%). Unlike containment-based approaches that risk outpacing growing model capabilities, escalation channels redirect capability toward disclosure rather than exploitation.

cs.AI