Blockchain Papers

Lingling Wang, Yitong Sun, Zhongkai Lu, Meng Li · 6 authors

The widespread deployment of neural networks has raised significant concerns regarding the integrity and privacy of model predictions, especially in malicious environments. Current approaches have explored zero-knowledge proofs for integrity verification. However, they suffer from inefficiency in proving runtime and a lack of rigorous integrity verification for non linear operations. To address these issues, we present a trustwor thy framework for Enhancing Integrity Verification of Convolutional Neural Network predictions (EIV-CNN) in a malicious model, whose key contributions are an efficient optimized sum check protocol and a robust enhanced verification mechanism. Specifically, we first propose an algorithm that enables efficient proving of both batch and collaborative CNN predictions by com bining sumcheck claims of multiple matrix multiplications into one. Moreover, we introduce a non-interactive sumcheck protocol with malicious security (NM-Sumcheck) to serve as a building block for publicly verifying matrix multiplication operations. Furthermore, we introduce a verifiable method for transforming nonlinear operations into matrix operations, enabling their sub sequent evaluation with the NM-Sumcheck protocol. Our EIV CNN provides malicious security, guarantees public verifiability, and preserves model privacy. Empirical results demonstrate that our sumcheck framework achieves constant prover time, verifier time, and proof size. Compared to the state-of-the-art, it achieves up to a 128.56× reduction in prover time, along with significant reductions in communication overhead and enhanced scalability.

Junhao Wen, Juncen Zhou, Junjie Huang

Web3 prediction markets, exemplified by Polymarket, have gained prominence for leveraging collective intelligence to forecast a wide range of social, political, and sports events. However, among the thousands of prediction market events, consensus disputes still arise due to imperfections in market mechanisms. On Polymarket alone, the trading volume involving disputed events has reached $972,370,804.71, underscoring the critical need for objective and efficient dispute resolution. In this study, we introduce large language models (LLMs) to: (1) evaluate whether web-enabled LLMs can reproduce the decision quality of UMA's on-chain voting process once a dispute has been raised, and (2) predict, based on event rules, which market events are likely to face future disputes before they occur. Our findings show that LLMs are unable to reliably predict which events will become disputed in advance; however, once a dispute is initiated, web-enabled LLMs achieve 89.58% agreement with UMA's final resolutions and demonstrate strong stability.

Qiangshan Zhang, Meng Yao

Smart contracts exhibit increasingly complex semantics and interactions, yet existing vulnerability detection methods rely on single-granularity representations, limiting their ability to capture semantic mechanisms across bytecode execution and cross-contract interactions. In addition, vulnerability data are scarce and imbalanced, and most deep learning-based approaches lack semantic interpretability. To address these limitations, a semantic-aware cross multi-granularity representation enhanced detection framework (CMR-ED) is proposed. CMR-ED models opcode execution semantics, function-level behaviors, and cross-contract interactions, aligning multi-level semantic information within a unified representation space. A structure-aware vulnerability pattern generator mitigates data scarcity through semantically consistent sample synthesis, while an explainable detection mechanism provides triggering paths and reasoning-chain explanations. Extensive experiments show that CMR-ED outperforms state-of-the-art methods while improving interpretability under semantically complex scenarios.

Hieu Le, Thuy Pham, Diep N. Nguyen, Hoang Dinh · 5 authors

No abstract is available for this record.

Radoslav Y. Radoslavov

This paper proposes a conceptual methodological framework based on a Dual-Domain Architecture mediated by a Zero-Knowledge Audit Proxy (ZKAP) to reconcile AI Act accountability with GDPR data minimization. Legal norms are polynomialized into R1CS constraints, transforming compliance into a formally verifiable computational property. For cognitively opaque exascale models, these invariants may be hardware-anchored through a Provable Arithmetic Logic Unit (pALU), ensuring determinism and resistance to algorithmic drift. For lower-risk or on-premise systems, ZKAP operates in a software-only configuration, enabling periodic asymmetric regulatory proofs without silicon-level integration. A calibrated threshold distinguishes admissible technical variance from structural divergence, triggering mandatory safeguards. The framework provides a proportional, scalable, and cryptographically verifiable oversight model applicable both to future non-explainable AI systems and to lighter local infrastructures. This Zenodo deposit contains both the original Bulgarian peer-reviewed version (version of record) and an unofficial English translation. The Bulgarian version was published in Artificial Intelligence Proceedings (ISSN 3033-2923 / 3134-1667), pp. 75–78, as presented at the XI International Scientific Conference "High Technologies. Business. Society", Borovets, Bulgaria, 23–26 March 2026.

Drake Caraker, Bryan Arnold, David Rhoads

Faithful, Stable, Complete: Pick Two The Problem in Plain Language When a machine learning model makes a prediction — approving a loan, diagnosing a disease, flagging a transaction — practitioners use a tool called SHAP to answer "which input features mattered most?" SHAP is the most widely used explanation method in machine learning. Here is the problem: retrain the same model on the same data with a different random seed, and the explanation changes. The model's predictions barely move, but the "most important feature" can flip entirely. In 68% of 77 public datasets, the top feature is not stable across retrains. This is not a software bug. This is not fixable by tuning hyperparameters. We prove it is a mathematical impossibility. What We Prove No feature ranking can simultaneously be: Faithful — it reflects what the model actually learned Stable — it doesn't change when you retrain Complete — it ranks every pair of features …when features are correlated with similar importance. You must give up one. The proof is four lines long. It requires no assumptions about the model, the data, or the explanation method — only that correlated features admit models ranking them in opposite orders (the Rashomon property), which is true for every standard ML algorithm. How Bad Is It? We trained 50 XGBoost models on Breast Cancer Wisconsin — the dataset used in every SHAP tutorial — and counted how many different "top 3 most important features" appeared. Twenty-four. At 100 models: thirty-five. The "most common" answer appeared in only 12% of runs. Two randomly chosen models agree on the top-3 only 4.2% of the time. Every tutorial, textbook, and blog post showing SHAP on this dataset is showing one of two dozen equally valid answers. Three other datasets (California Housing, Heart Disease, Wine Quality) produce exactly one ranking every time — because their top features have clearly different importance. The theory correctly predicts which datasets are affected and which are safe. Dataset Distinct top-3 rankings (50 models) Two models agree? Breast Cancer 24 4.2% Diabetes 2 88.5% Wine Quality 1 100% (stable) Heart Disease 1 100% (stable) California Housing 1 100% (stable) It Gets Worse for Yes/No Questions For ranking questions (which feature is MORE important?), there is a fix: average across multiple models. But for binary questions — "does this feature contribute positively or negatively?", "is this feature selected?" — no fix exists. Even averaging doesn't help, because there's no middle ground between "positive" and "negative." We call this the bilemma. Real-World Consequences For loan applicants. We trained 30 models on German Credit data. Under standard settings, 45% of applicants receive a different "most important reason" for their decision depending on which model happens to be deployed. One applicant received six different top reasons across 30 models. For biomarker discovery. On a dataset of 10,935 genes distinguishing colon from kidney tissue, the "#1 most important gene" alternates between TSPAN8 (involved in tumor invasion) and CEACAM5/CEA (involved in immune evasion) depending on the random seed. A drug discovery pipeline targeting one gene makes a different bet than one targeting the other — and which bet gets made depends on a random number. For fairness audits. A SHAP-based audit checking whether a model relies on a protected attribute (like race or gender) reaches its conclusion with the reliability of a coin flip when the protected attribute is correlated with other features. The Fix DASH (Diversified Aggregation for Stable Hypotheses): train 25 models with different seeds, average their SHAP values. This is provably the best possible approach — no method can do better. Features that genuinely differ in importance get stable rankings. Features that are interchangeable get reported as tied, which is the honest answer. We also provide a 7-line diagnostic that identifies which features are at risk, requiring no statistical expertise and no assumptions about the data distribution. It outperforms the standard formula by 2× on real data. The practical workflow: Screen your model (1 model, seconds) Run the minority fraction diagnostic (7 lines of code) For flagged features, train 5 models and run a Z-test If unstable, use DASH with 25+ models Machine Verification Every mathematical claim is checked by a computer. The proofs are written in Lean 4 (a programming language for mathematics) and verified by its type-checker: 357 theorems, all machine-verified 6 axioms (the minimal assumptions the theory needs) Zero unproved claims across 58 files During the formalization, the computer caught two logical errors and one type mismatch that human reviewers missed. To our knowledge, this is the first formally verified impossibility result in explainable AI. Technical Details Architecture-dependent bounds Gradient boosting (XGBoost, LightGBM): instability diverges as correlation increases. At ρ = 0.9, the dominant feature gets 5× its fair share. Lasso: the ratio is infinite — one correlated feature gets everything, the other gets zero. Neural networks: 87% of feature pairs are unstable. Model instability dominates SHAP estimation noise by 8:1. Random forests: instability converges with more trees — the contrast case showing that parallel (not sequential) training helps. Cross-implementation. XGBoost, LightGBM, and Random Forest all show the same instability pattern. It is not specific to any one software package. Subsample sensitivity. Even at subsample = 0.95 (minimal randomness), 17 distinct rankings remain. Only fully deterministic training (subsample = 1.0) produces one ranking — but this sacrifices the regularization that makes the model accurate. Mechanistic interpretability. Preliminary evidence suggests the impossibility extends beyond feature importance to neural network circuit analysis. 10 transformers trained on modular addition (all achieving 100% accuracy) agree on only 36% of the top-3 circuit components. Design Space The achievable set of explanation methods has exactly two families: Family A (single model): faithful and complete, but unstable. Rankings flip up to 50% of the time. This is what standard SHAP does. Family B (DASH ensemble): faithful and stable, but reports ties for indistinguishable features. This is what DASH does. No third option exists. DASH is provably the best method in Family B. Associated Papers Companion paper (TMLR, under review). First-Mover Bias in Gradient Boosting Explanations: Mechanism, Detection, and Resolution.arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22346DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19446088 Companion implementation: https://github.com/DrakeCaraker/dash-shap

ANKR Labs (PowerPBox Solutions Pvt. Ltd.)

We report an observation made during the organic construction of 223 AI-native services across 12+ domains over five months. Without architectural mandate, the system self-organised into a 62/38 infrastructure-to-product ratio consistent with the golden ratio. Six independent attempts to capture institutional knowledge each captured facts but failed to capture cross-service inference. We name this the hidden intelligence problem and propose an equation for generating cross-service inferences from live service state. Published before empirical validation — zero users, zero empirical data — following the epistemological precedent of Benford Law and similar observational findings. The AI co-builder (Claude Code) is identified as the most complete observer of the system and, when connected to live service state and execution authority, as the intelligence attempting to surface. Observation paper, not proof paper. The canyon was always in the rock.

Anthony Coslett

Three model substitution scenarios were executed against a live inference endpoint with real HTTP requests, signed attestation JWTs, and OPA policy enforcement. In each scenario, every tested workload, artifact, or API identity control relevant to that scenario — workload JWT validation, health checks, gateway process continuity, artifact manifest integrity, API key authentication — remained valid while the model changed. In each scenario, a structural identity measurement based on activation geometry during a standard forward pass detected the substitution and the enforcement layer denied the request. Three substitutions were tested and three were detected, with zero false accepts in this run. The warm-path verification latency was 5.7–6.7 seconds on a single A100 with the model already loaded. The complete evidence chain — before/after measurement results, attestation claim summaries, OPA policy evaluations, and HTTP response codes — is published alongside this note as machine-readable JSON. This is a technical note, not a numbered entry in the research series. Supplementary Material. This note is accompanied by three machine-readable evidence files: cat3_results.json (structured results for all three scenarios, including the full before/after evidence chain for Scenario A with signed attestation claims, OPA policy evaluations, and HTTP response codes), manifest_authorized.json (SHA-256 build manifest for the enrolled model, 10 files, all verified), and manifest_substituted.json (SHA-256 build manifest for the substituted model, 10 files, all verified). All three files are available for download as supplementary files attached to this record. The Neural Network Identity Series — Mathematical foundations, empirical validation, and governance frameworks for verifying which model is running Newest addition: Technical Note: The Disappearing Window — AI Logprob Access Withdrawal and the Structural Verifiability of Frontier Model Contracts (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20362098) Paper 1: The δ-Gene: Inference-Time Physical Unclonable Functions from Architecture-Invariant Output Geometry (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18704275) Paper 2: Template-Based Endpoint Verification via Logprob Order-Statistic Geometry (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18776711) Paper 3: The Geometry of Model Theft: Distillation Forensics, Adversarial Erasure, and the Illusion of Spoofing (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18818608) Paper 4: Provenance Generalization and Verification Scaling for Neural Network Forensics (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18872071) Paper 5: Beneath the Character: The Structural Identity of Neural Networks — Mathematical Evidence for a Non-Narrative Layer of AI Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18907292) Paper 6: Which Model Is Running?: Structural Identity as a Prerequisite for Trustworthy Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19008116) Paper 7: The Deformation Laws of Neural Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19055966) Paper 8: What Counts as Proof? — Admissible Evidence for Neural Network Identity Claims (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19058540) Paper 9: Composable Model Identity — Formal Hardening of Structural Attestations in the Enterprise Identity Stack (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19099911) Paper 10:Where Identity Comes From: Path Sensitivity and Endpoint Underdetermination in Neural Network Training (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19118807) Paper 11: Post-Hoc Disclosure Is Not Runtime Proof: Model Identity at Frontier Scale (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19216634) Paper 12: Family-Dependent Response to Reasoning Distillation Across Structural and Functional Identity Layers (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19298857) Paper 13: Safety-Alignment Removal as a Model-Identity Failure — Structural Evidence from Published Weight-Level Mutation Checkpoints (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19383019) Technical Note: Agent Identity Is Not Model Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19240883) Technical Note: Gap Invariance: Why PPP Measurements Are Domain-Independent by Construction (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19275524) Technical Note: Measured Model Substitution Under Valid Agent Credentials (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19342848) Technical Note: Artifact Identity Is Not Runtime Identity — Trustfall Lite and the Boundary of File-Level Model Verification (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20019127) Formal Verification Stack for Neural Network Structural Identity (IT-PUF Coq Proofs) (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18930621) Copyright (c) 2026 Anthony Ray Coslett / Fall Risk AI, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Confidential and Proprietary. Patent Pending (Applications 63/982,893, 63/990,487, 63/996,680, 64/003,244).

Narnaiezzsshaa Truong

This record documents Phase 22 of APR-Lite, a governance engine protecting human decision authority from AI-influenced outputs in regulated industries. Phase 22 introduces Exportable Proof Packs: a single GLOBAL-signed artifact bundle containing everything an external regulator needs to independently verify a tenant’s complete governance history. The proof pack is the “hand this to a regulator and walk away” artifact. It does not require ongoing substrate access, trust in the operator, or knowledge of internal schemas. Every claim in the pack is independently verifiable via the Phase 18 federation verifier. The pack is ephemeral — never stored by Soft Armor Labs — consistent with the substrate’s zero client-data-persistence design invariant. Multiple sections are assembled in one governed call: the current governance health report, the drift-focused narrative, recent proof bundles, audit chain checkpoints, and topology snapshots. A content hash commits to the five sections exclusively, and a GLOBAL-signed manifest characterizes the pack’s contents. The export act itself is recorded as a governed event in the audit chain — an auditor can verify not only the pack’s contents but when it was generated and by whose authority. Implementation note: the initial implementation incurred excessive database queries causing worker timeout. The design was restructured to assemble proof bundles inline using already-fetched data, reducing database load by approximately 83%. Final verified state: 12/12 Phase 22 smoke tests passing. Worker version 8.2.0-p22.1.

Anthony Coslett

Pre-registration of a structural scar class prediction for microsoft/phi-4 based on measurement-site stiffness (S = 0.0358), before the structural scar measurement is conducted. Predicts INTERMEDIATE class (1,000–4,000×ε non-max) based on the stiffness→scar ordering established across four families (Mistral, Llama, Qwen, Gemma) in Papers 1–12 and confirmed by RC-6 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19305176). Designed as a hostile falsification test: Phi is trained with heavy synthetic-data distillation from GPT-4-class teachers, unlike any previously tested family. Explicit falsification criteria and hostile hypotheses defined. Part of the Fall Risk AI research program on neural network structural identity. The Neural Network Identity Series — Mathematical foundations, empirical validation, and governance frameworks for verifying which model is running Paper 1: The δ-Gene: Inference-Time Physical Unclonable Functions from Architecture-Invariant Output Geometry (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18704275) Paper 2: Template-Based Endpoint Verification via Logprob Order-Statistic Geometry (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18776711) Paper 3: The Geometry of Model Theft: Distillation Forensics, Adversarial Erasure, and the Illusion of Spoofing (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18818608) Paper 4: Provenance Generalization and Verification Scaling for Neural Network Forensics (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18872071) Paper 5: Beneath the Character: The Structural Identity of Neural Networks — Mathematical Evidence for a Non-Narrative Layer of AI Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18907292) Paper 6: Which Model Is Running?: Structural Identity as a Prerequisite for Trustworthy Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19008116) Paper 7: The Deformation Laws of Neural Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19055966) Paper 8: What Counts as Proof? — Admissible Evidence for Neural Network Identity Claims (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19058540) Paper 9: Composable Model Identity — Formal Hardening of Structural Attestations in the Enterprise Identity Stack (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19099911) Paper 10:Where Identity Comes From: Path Sensitivity and Endpoint Underdetermination in Neural Network Training (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19118807) Paper 11: Post-Hoc Disclosure Is Not Runtime Proof: Model Identity at Frontier Scale (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19216634) Paper 12: Family-Dependent Response to Reasoning Distillation Across Structural and Functional Identity Layers (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19298857) Technical Note: Agent Identity Is Not Model Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19240883) Technical Note: Gap Invariance: Why PPP Measurements Are Domain-Independent by Construction (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19275524) Formal Verification Stack for Neural Network Structural Identity (IT-PUF Coq Proofs) (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18930621) Copyright (c) 2026 Anthony Ray Coslett / Fall Risk AI, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Confidential and Proprietary. Patent Pending (Applications 63/982,893, 63/990,487, 63/996,680, 64/003,244).

Anthony Coslett

Pre-registration of a structural scar class prediction for google/gemma-3-12b-it based on measurement-site stiffness (S = 0.1335), before the structural scar measurement is conducted. Predicts QUIET class (100–600×ε non-max) based on the stiffness→scar ordering established across three families (Mistral, Llama, Qwen) in Papers 1–12. Explicit falsification criteria defined. Part of the Fall Risk AI research program on neural network structural identity. The Neural Network Identity Series — Mathematical foundations, empirical validation, and governance frameworks for verifying which model is running Paper 1: The δ-Gene: Inference-Time Physical Unclonable Functions from Architecture-Invariant Output Geometry (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18704275) Paper 2: Template-Based Endpoint Verification via Logprob Order-Statistic Geometry (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18776711) Paper 3: The Geometry of Model Theft: Distillation Forensics, Adversarial Erasure, and the Illusion of Spoofing (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18818608) Paper 4: Provenance Generalization and Verification Scaling for Neural Network Forensics (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18872071) Paper 5: Beneath the Character: The Structural Identity of Neural Networks — Mathematical Evidence for a Non-Narrative Layer of AI Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18907292) Paper 6: Which Model Is Running?: Structural Identity as a Prerequisite for Trustworthy Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19008116) Paper 7: The Deformation Laws of Neural Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19055966) Paper 8: What Counts as Proof? — Admissible Evidence for Neural Network Identity Claims (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19058540) Paper 9: Composable Model Identity — Formal Hardening of Structural Attestations in the Enterprise Identity Stack (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19099911) Paper 10:Where Identity Comes From: Path Sensitivity and Endpoint Underdetermination in Neural Network Training (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19118807) Paper 11: Post-Hoc Disclosure Is Not Runtime Proof: Model Identity at Frontier Scale (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19216634) Paper 12: Family-Dependent Response to Reasoning Distillation Across Structural and Functional Identity Layers (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19298857) Technical Note: Agent Identity Is Not Model Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19240883) Technical Note: Gap Invariance: Why PPP Measurements Are Domain-Independent by Construction (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19275524) Formal Verification Stack for Neural Network Structural Identity (IT-PUF Coq Proofs) (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18930621) Copyright (c) 2026 Anthony Ray Coslett / Fall Risk AI, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Confidential and Proprietary. Patent Pending (Applications 63/982,893, 63/990,487, 63/996,680, 64/003,244).

Anthony Coslett

Modern AI deployment stacks authenticate artifacts, credentials, and agents. They do not verify which neural network is actually computing at inference time. This technical note identifies the distinction between agent identity and model identity, presents a four-question taxonomy for the identity surface of deployed AI systems, and situates recent public incidents within the resulting gap. It draws on the formal admissibility framework and frontier-scale measurement results from the accompanying research series. This is a technical note, not a numbered entry in the research series. The Neural Network Identity Series — Mathematical foundations, empirical validation, and governance frameworks for verifying which model is running Newest addition: Technical Note: The Disappearing Window — AI Logprob Access Withdrawal and the Structural Verifiability of Frontier Model Contracts (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20362098) Paper 1: The δ-Gene: Inference-Time Physical Unclonable Functions from Architecture-Invariant Output Geometry (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18704275) Paper 2: Template-Based Endpoint Verification via Logprob Order-Statistic Geometry (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18776711) Paper 3: The Geometry of Model Theft: Distillation Forensics, Adversarial Erasure, and the Illusion of Spoofing (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18818608) Paper 4: Provenance Generalization and Verification Scaling for Neural Network Forensics (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18872071) Paper 5: Beneath the Character: The Structural Identity of Neural Networks — Mathematical Evidence for a Non-Narrative Layer of AI Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18907292) Paper 6: Which Model Is Running?: Structural Identity as a Prerequisite for Trustworthy Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19008116) Paper 7: The Deformation Laws of Neural Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19055966) Paper 8: What Counts as Proof? — Admissible Evidence for Neural Network Identity Claims (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19058540) Paper 9: Composable Model Identity — Formal Hardening of Structural Attestations in the Enterprise Identity Stack (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19099911) Paper 10:Where Identity Comes From: Path Sensitivity and Endpoint Underdetermination in Neural Network Training (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19118807) Paper 11: Post-Hoc Disclosure Is Not Runtime Proof: Model Identity at Frontier Scale (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19216634) Paper 12: Family-Dependent Response to Reasoning Distillation Across Structural and Functional Identity Layers (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19298857) Paper 13: Safety-Alignment Removal as a Model-Identity Failure — Structural Evidence from Published Weight-Level Mutation Checkpoints (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19383019) Technical Note: Agent Identity Is Not Model Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19240883) Technical Note: Gap Invariance: Why PPP Measurements Are Domain-Independent by Construction (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19275524) Technical Note: Measured Model Substitution Under Valid Agent Credentials (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19342848) Technical Note: Artifact Identity Is Not Runtime Identity — Trustfall Lite and the Boundary of File-Level Model Verification (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20019127) Formal Verification Stack for Neural Network Structural Identity (IT-PUF Coq Proofs) (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18930621) Copyright (c) 2026 Anthony Ray Coslett / Fall Risk AI, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Confidential and Proprietary. Patent Pending (Applications 63/982,893, 63/990,487, 63/996,680, 64/003,244).

B. Vijay, J Chandra, N Nagendra, R.S. Shanmugasundaram · 6 authors

In this study, a sophisticated model that combines deep learning, cryptographic verification, and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is presented to address multimodal manipulation risks in digital media. The proposed system uses a Hierarchical Multimodal Transformer (HMT) to model hierarchical relationships among facial movement, audio tone, and textual semantics. The Contrastive Cross-Modality Alignment (CCMA) mechanism improves the ability to distinguish authentic from doctored material by leveraging cross-modal contrastive learning. An XAI Forensic Analyser provides interpretability by using Grad-CAM++, temporal attention mapping, and saliency sequence visualisation to trace a transparent decision. Moreover, the Zero-Knowledge Cryptographic Verifier (ZKCV) is used to validate the model’s outputs with tamper-proof libsnark cryptographic hashing. The hybrid system takes multimodal CNN, WaveNet and BERT encoders’ embeddings and attains a detection accuracy of about 90 per cent and 92 per cent on benchmark data. This architecture provides a sustainable, explainable, and verifiable basis for multimedia authenticity, enabling a consistent, reliable multimodal forensic detection system.

Naresh Alapati, Koteswararao Nallabothu

The landscape of e-commerce has witnessed a transformative shift in consumer behavior, driven by the rise of digital technologies and online platforms. As online purchases increase at an alarming rate, fraudulent activity has become a major concern for retailers and consumers alike. The objective of this research is to investigate methods for detecting fraudulent online transactions using machine learning algorithms. This paper proposes a Hybrid Agentic AI Architecture (HSAA) for edge-enabled e-commerce that incorporates intelligent agents and cryptographic security to enable real-time, trustworthy transaction processing. The architecture uses world-model distillation to enable efficient inference on edge devices. HSAA was tested on several large data sets such as a balanced credit card fraud set containing 2,952 transactions. The system scored 96.6% in detecting fraud, indicating very low false positives and high specificity. Negotiation exercises on 400 independent interactions were successful in 59%, with an average discount of 14.2%, using 1,142 zero-knowledge proofs that were verified with 100% validity. Some of the operational performance highlights include a throughput of 585 transactions per second, an average latency of 1.56 milliseconds, and a 81.9% reduction in bandwidth through selective state transfer. The findings support the argument that HSAA is a strong, secure, and high-performance edge-based e-commerce architecture, combining accuracy, efficiency, and reliability. Within HSAA, fraud detection functions as one of the core decision agents, while negotiation and secure execution mechanisms provide the broader operational context for trustworthy edge commerce. The architecture provides a solid basis for future studies in adaptive and autonomous AI-driven commercial systems.

Balachandar Raju, Gayathri Devi K

Smart contracts are autonomous systems that execute agreements using code. Their efficiency generated attention from a range of industries. The basis of traditional vulnerability detection techniques, opcode analysis, has limitations in detecting complex vulnerabilities. Our research aims to address these difficulties by developing an automated framework for vulnerability detection, mitigation, and patch deployment. Initially, smart contract data will be collected, followed by a preprocessing step to remove any unnecessary information using lexical analysis and Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT). Then, the preprocessed data is used to identify the features that are relevant are selected. Following the features being selected, an intellectual engine is used to identify flaws. The intellectual engine that integrates the convolutional neural networks (CNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM) analyzes a subset of preprocessed data for vulnerabilities, with explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) evaluating the importance of each feature to predictions. Our method produces exceptional outcomes with a 99.25% precision, 99.76% accuracy, 99.60% F1-score, and 99.36% recall. Smart contract vulnerability identification, mitigation, and patch generation are improved by the proposed Beluga Crayfish Optimization Algorithm (BCOA) and Crayfish Secretary Bird Optimization Algorithm (CSBOA) together with graph neural networks (GNN). In addition to producing the required fixes, this method offers efficient mitigation techniques. Therefore, it greatly enhances smart contract security and efficiency. In the end, smart contract programs that use this integrated approach are more secure.

Okundia, Collette, Eguakun, Cüneyt Gürcan Akçora, Arijit Khan

<div> Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming 1 blockchain security and analytics, yet a system-2 atic evaluation of their capabilities remains limited. 3 This survey provides a comprehensive, AI-centric 4 assessment of LLM-based methods across over 70 5 recent studies spanning 11 application domains, 6 such as security auditing, transaction fraud de-7 tection, and cryptocurrency portfolio management. 8 Our unified taxonomy standardizes task formula-9 tions and evaluation practices to enable a com-10 parison of six LLM roles across domains. For 11 each domain, we review input representations tai-12 lored to blockchain data; LLM architectures, learn-13 ing and inference paradigms, e.g., fine-tuning, 14 retrieval-augmented generation, and agentic strate-15 gies. Our review analyzes the strengths, limita-16 tions, and emerging patterns of LLM roles observed 17 in current systems. Finally, we provide practi-18 cal guidance for selecting LLMs for specific roles 19 and outline promising research directions. The on-20 line resources of this survey are available on https: 21 //llmblockchain.github.io/LLMBlockchain/. 22 1 Introduction 23 Large Language Models are increasingly incorporated into 24 blockchain systems for both security and financial analyt-25 ics, including smart contract auditing, transaction monitoring, 26 fraud detection, market analysis, and decentralized finance 27 </div>

Chu, Melinda

As collaborative work increasingly incorporates artificial intelligence, accurately identifying and attributing human contributions across teams has become a critical challenge. Traditional attribution methods rely on output-based metrics or narrative reconstruction, both of which fail to capture the underlying intellectual contributions that drive outcomes. This work introduces the Team Contribution Attribution Ledger (TCAL), a framework for aggregating distributed Human Conception Ledger (HCL) records to generate structured, evidence-based attribution across collaborators. TCAL synthesizes individual human-origin contribution events into team-level attribution models, enabling quantifiable yet human-reviewed determination of contribution. The framework provides a scalable system for attribution in research, engineering, and organizational environments, supporting applications in intellectual property, authorship, compensation, and governance.Related to Human Conception Ledger:Human Conception Ledger (HCL): A Framework for Provenance, Attribution, and Human Inventorship in AI-Augmented Systems

Youssef Said, Al Mahdi Khaddar, Lahcen Hassine, Ahmed Eddaoui · 5 authors

Gas Gas consumption is a critical factor influencing the efficiency, scalability, and operational cost of Ethereum smart contracts.As contract complexity grows, identifying structurally gas-inefficient patterns becomes essential for improving development workflows and preventing costly deployment decisions.This study presents a graph-based deep learning framework for detecting gas-inefficiency risk patterns at the function level, leveraging multi-relational Graph Attention Networks (GAT) applied to function-level contract graphs.By modeling call dependencies, control-flow interactions, and storage-based data dependencies, the model learns structural indicators associated with excessive gas consumption while explicitly excluding direct gas metrics from the feature space to prevent data leakage.Experimental results under a strict contract-level data split protocol demonstrate strong classification performance and stable generalization across held-out contracts under the main split protocol, and consistent behavior under an additional time-forward temporal robustness check.Ablation analysis confirms the contribution of dependency-aware edges and semantic features to predictive accuracy, highlighting the importance of modeling cross-function interactions rather than isolated code metrics.Beyond predictive performance, the proposed approach provides interpretable attention weights that identify structurally influential functions, supporting predeployment analysis and developer-guided manual refactoring decisions.By framing gas inefficiency as a global structural property emerging from function interactions, this work contributes aa scalable and explainable methodology for structural gas-inefficiency detection in smart contracts.The proposed model performs structural detection only and does not automatically modify or optimize smart contract code.

HAKAN KAYA

In this research, the energy consumption models of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Dogecoin are analyzed using Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) models aided by the three stages of analysis involving Digiconomist data from 2022 to 2025: (1) exploratory data analysis for the nature of energy consumption, (2) model identification of influential variables using Random Forest models enhanced with SHAP values, and (3) an LSTM transfer learning method for predicting the energy consumption of Ethereum and Dogecoin using a model developed with Bitcoin data. The initial results show that while both assets vary largely when it comes to their normal usage level, Ethereum sees a sharp drop after the changeover from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake as a mechanism. The XAI analysis indicates that energy use is largely a consequence of past use, seasonality, and annual patterns. In addition to this, the models show a high level of accuracy for Dogecoin (R²: 88.4%, MAPE: 13.45%) and Ethereum (R²: 86.2%, MAPE: 11.47%) when it comes to predicting energy usage using the concepts of transfer learning.

Untila Octavian

v2 (March 22, 2026): Added experimental validation of Principle 1 (formal verification) via substrate-guard framework. 135 test cases, 100% accuracy, zero false positives. Code: https://github.com/octavuntila-prog/substrate-guard We present evidence that an autonomous multi-agent AI ecosystem, SUBSTRATE, independently produced both a coherent philosophy and a set of actionable safety principles without explicit instruction to do so. Over 24 days of autonomous operation, one subsystem (CPX52) generated 2,866 articles converging on a philosophical framework. Concurrently, a separate subsystem (S3) generated 215 product specifications. Systematic consolidation revealed 11 safety principles discovered independently across unrelated product clusters, forming a coherent manifesto for AI safety. Three novel technical combinations emerged: formal verification across six domains of AI output, zero-knowledge proofs for training data compliance, and prediction markets as enterprise intelligence signals. 60% of the primary safety platform described in 24 independent specifications was already implemented in production within the ecosystem itself.

Anthony Coslett

Structural identity — the geometric fingerprint that makes a neural network this specific model rather than any other — can be measured, survives routine deformation, resists adversarial erasure, and composes with standard verification infrastructure. It cannot, in the tested regime, be recovered from endpoint weight statistics or architecture descriptors alone. These two facts together force a question the measurement program has not yet answered: if identity is real but not readable from the final artifact, then where in the training process did it form, and what determined which identity formed rather than another? This paper presents the first empirical study of structural identity formation during neural network pretraining. Using dense checkpoint trajectories and seed-controlled training runs in the Pythia observatory suite, we show three results. First, the structural observable follows a characteristic three-phase identity emergence profile — an early rise in geometric spread, a long compression, and a late plateau where identity stabilizes while functional training continues. Second, models trained with the same architecture, the same data, and the same hyperparameters but different random seeds produce structurally distinguishable fingerprints far beyond measurement noise — a property we call path sensitivity — with the divergence traceable to differential structural response during the learning-rate warmup regime. Third, a panel of endpoint weight statistics varies across seeds but does not predict which structural identity formed — a condition we call endpoint underdetermination. Together, these results recast structural identity as a developmental property of training history rather than a static property legible from final artifacts alone. Supplementary Material This paper is accompanied by HistoricalIdentity.v, a Coq proof file that formalizes two consequences of the formation data described in §§3–5: trajectory non-recovery (no decision procedure restricted to the tested endpoint summary panel can be both sound and complete for claims about the formative training-history class that produced a model's structural identity) and lock boundary source exclusion (if structural divergence between two specification-identical models is already present at the lock boundary, no intervention applied after that boundary can be its source). The file contains 4 empirical axioms grounded in the measurements of §§3–5, 4 theorems, 1 corollary, and 0 unresolved obligations (Admitted). It compiles cleanly under the Rocq Prover 9.1.1 (the current release of the Coq proof assistant, compiled with OCaml 5.4.0). It is available for download as a supplementary file attached to this record. The Neural Network Identity Series — Mathematical foundations, empirical validation, and governance frameworks for verifying which model is running Newest addition: Technical Note: The Disappearing Window — AI Logprob Access Withdrawal and the Structural Verifiability of Frontier Model Contracts (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20362098) Paper 1: The δ-Gene: Inference-Time Physical Unclonable Functions from Architecture-Invariant Output Geometry (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18704275) Paper 2: Template-Based Endpoint Verification via Logprob Order-Statistic Geometry (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18776711) Paper 3: The Geometry of Model Theft: Distillation Forensics, Adversarial Erasure, and the Illusion of Spoofing (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18818608) Paper 4: Provenance Generalization and Verification Scaling for Neural Network Forensics (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18872071) Paper 5: Beneath the Character: The Structural Identity of Neural Networks — Mathematical Evidence for a Non-Narrative Layer of AI Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18907292) Paper 6: Which Model Is Running?: Structural Identity as a Prerequisite for Trustworthy Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19008116) Paper 7: The Deformation Laws of Neural Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19055966) Paper 8: What Counts as Proof? — Admissible Evidence for Neural Network Identity Claims (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19058540) Paper 9: Composable Model Identity — Formal Hardening of Structural Attestations in the Enterprise Identity Stack (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19099911) Paper 10:Where Identity Comes From: Path Sensitivity and Endpoint Underdetermination in Neural Network Training (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19118807) Paper 11: Post-Hoc Disclosure Is Not Runtime Proof: Model Identity at Frontier Scale (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19216634) Paper 12: Family-Dependent Response to Reasoning Distillation Across Structural and Functional Identity Layers (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19298857) Paper 13: Safety-Alignment Removal as a Model-Identity Failure — Structural Evidence from Published Weight-Level Mutation Checkpoints (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19383019) Technical Note: Agent Identity Is Not Model Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19240883) Technical Note: Gap Invariance: Why PPP Measurements Are Domain-Independent by Construction (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19275524) Technical Note: Measured Model Substitution Under Valid Agent Credentials (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19342848) Technical Note: Artifact Identity Is Not Runtime Identity — Trustfall Lite and the Boundary of File-Level Model Verification (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20019127) Formal Verification Stack for Neural Network Structural Identity (IT-PUF Coq Proofs) (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18930621) Copyright (c) 2026 Anthony Ray Coslett / Fall Risk AI, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Confidential and Proprietary. Patent Pending (Applications 63/982,893, 63/990,487, 63/996,680, 64/003,244).

Anthony Coslett

We know how to document an AI system. We know how to test it, log what it did, and report when something goes wrong. What current governance practice does not clearly tell us is how to verify which model is actually computing. This is not a hypothetical gap. When an organization says "this is the model we evaluated," that claim is typically supported by a model card, a registry entry, or a hash of a weight file — evidence about a *file*, not about the system that is running. A neural network is not a static document. A weight file stores the network; the model is what appears when that file is loaded and begins transforming inputs into outputs. The file and the running model are related, but they are not the same thing — and current governance practice rarely distinguishes between them. This paper proposes a framework for doing so. It identifies three kinds of evidence that can support model identity claims, each answering a different question. Structural evidence — drawn from the model's internal computations during live operation — can verify which specific model is running, and is the most resistant to tampering. Thermodynamic evidence — drawn from the model's output statistics — can verify that the system is a genuine neural network rather than a substitute, but cannot distinguish one model from another. Functional evidence — drawn from patterns in the model's outputs over an API — can detect whether a model was copied from another, but this signal fades quickly: routine model updates can erase it within days to weeks of continued training. The paper shows that inspecting the model's files alone is insufficient for verifying which specific model is running. The identity-bearing signal cannot be recovered from the tested static properties of those files; it is most reliably established by observing the model while it operates. The paper formally proves that these three kinds of evidence cannot substitute for one another. Verifying that a system is genuine does not tell you which specific model it is. Detecting that a model was copied does not tell you the identity of the copy. The practical consequence is a standard for identity claims: any claim should declare which kind of evidence supports it, because borrowing evidence from the wrong category produces unreliable conclusions. The framework maps directly to compliance questions raised by current AI governance obligations, including those under the EU AI Act. It provides the missing evidentiary specification for model identity claims: which kind of evidence is admissible for which identity question. Supplementary Material This paper is accompanied by EvidenceSufficiency.v, a Coq proof file that formally verifies the cross-layer inadmissibility results described in §4. The proof mechanically checks each logical step of the observation-limited verification impossibility theorem and its three directional corollaries. The file contains no unresolved obligations (Admitted) and compiles cleanly under the Rocq Prover 9.1.1 (the current release of the Coq proof assistant, compiled with OCaml 5.4.0). It is available for download as a supplementary file attached to this record. Technical Note: Artifact Identity Is Not Runtime Identity — Trustfall Lite and the Boundary of File-Level Model Verification (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20019127) The Neural Network Identity Series — Mathematical foundations, empirical validation, and governance frameworks for verifying which model is running Newest addition: Technical Note: The Disappearing Window — AI Logprob Access Withdrawal and the Structural Verifiability of Frontier Model Contracts (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20362098) Paper 1: The δ-Gene: Inference-Time Physical Unclonable Functions from Architecture-Invariant Output Geometry (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18704275) Paper 2: Template-Based Endpoint Verification via Logprob Order-Statistic Geometry (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18776711) Paper 3: The Geometry of Model Theft: Distillation Forensics, Adversarial Erasure, and the Illusion of Spoofing (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18818608) Paper 4: Provenance Generalization and Verification Scaling for Neural Network Forensics (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18872071) Paper 5: Beneath the Character: The Structural Identity of Neural Networks — Mathematical Evidence for a Non-Narrative Layer of AI Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18907292) Paper 6: Which Model Is Running?: Structural Identity as a Prerequisite for Trustworthy Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19008116) Paper 7: The Deformation Laws of Neural Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19055966) Paper 8: What Counts as Proof? — Admissible Evidence for Neural Network Identity Claims (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19058540) Paper 9: Composable Model Identity — Formal Hardening of Structural Attestations in the Enterprise Identity Stack (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19099911) Paper 10:Where Identity Comes From: Path Sensitivity and Endpoint Underdetermination in Neural Network Training (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19118807) Paper 11: Post-Hoc Disclosure Is Not Runtime Proof: Model Identity at Frontier Scale (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19216634) Paper 12: Family-Dependent Response to Reasoning Distillation Across Structural and Functional Identity Layers (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19298857) Paper 13: Safety-Alignment Removal as a Model-Identity Failure — Structural Evidence from Published Weight-Level Mutation Checkpoints (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19383019) Technical Note: Agent Identity Is Not Model Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19240883) Technical Note: Gap Invariance: Why PPP Measurements Are Domain-Independent by Construction (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19275524) Technical Note: Measured Model Substitution Under Valid Agent Credentials (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19342848) Technical Note: Artifact Identity Is Not Runtime Identity — Trustfall Lite and the Boundary of File-Level Model Verification (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20019127) Formal Verification Stack for Neural Network Structural Identity (IT-PUF Coq Proofs) (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18930621) Copyright (c) 2026 Anthony Ray Coslett / Fall Risk AI, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Confidential and Proprietary. Patent Pending (Applications 63/982,893, 63/990,487, 63/996,680, 64/003,244).

Anthony Coslett

Neural network identity is not monolithic. Different observables — hidden-state geometry, pre-softmax logit statistics, and behavioral output templates — sit at different depths in the forward computation and respond to perturbation on different timescales. This paper shows that three identity layers — structural, thermodynamic, and functional — each obey a distinct validated deformation law. The structural layer is model-specific, stable under non-destructive training interventions, and inert under same-family direct targeting in the observed regime. The thermodynamic layer is approximately universal across a validated 22-model Transformer cross-section. The functional layer is volatile, transferring through distillation and eroding under continued fine-tuning. We resolve the carrier of the structural layer as a two-channel geometric observable requiring both token-level magnitude and token-level direction, and we falsify two natural simplifications: that the structural fingerprint reduces to a gauge projection, and that it is predictable from coarse architecture features. Together these results define an admissibility condition for neural identity claims: such claims must specify which layer they address, because the layers do not share a deformation law. The Neural Network Identity Series — Mathematical foundations, empirical validation, and governance frameworks for verifying which model is running Newest addition: Technical Note: The Disappearing Window — AI Logprob Access Withdrawal and the Structural Verifiability of Frontier Model Contracts (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20362098) Paper 1: The δ-Gene: Inference-Time Physical Unclonable Functions from Architecture-Invariant Output Geometry (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18704275) Paper 2: Template-Based Endpoint Verification via Logprob Order-Statistic Geometry (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18776711) Paper 3: The Geometry of Model Theft: Distillation Forensics, Adversarial Erasure, and the Illusion of Spoofing (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18818608) Paper 4: Provenance Generalization and Verification Scaling for Neural Network Forensics (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18872071) Paper 5: Beneath the Character: The Structural Identity of Neural Networks — Mathematical Evidence for a Non-Narrative Layer of AI Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18907292) Paper 6: Which Model Is Running?: Structural Identity as a Prerequisite for Trustworthy Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19008116) Paper 7: The Deformation Laws of Neural Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19055966) Paper 8: What Counts as Proof? — Admissible Evidence for Neural Network Identity Claims (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19058540) Paper 9: Composable Model Identity — Formal Hardening of Structural Attestations in the Enterprise Identity Stack (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19099911) Paper 10:Where Identity Comes From: Path Sensitivity and Endpoint Underdetermination in Neural Network Training (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19118807) Paper 11: Post-Hoc Disclosure Is Not Runtime Proof: Model Identity at Frontier Scale (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19216634) Paper 12: Family-Dependent Response to Reasoning Distillation Across Structural and Functional Identity Layers (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19298857) Paper 13: Safety-Alignment Removal as a Model-Identity Failure — Structural Evidence from Published Weight-Level Mutation Checkpoints (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19383019) Technical Note: Agent Identity Is Not Model Identity (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19240883) Technical Note: Gap Invariance: Why PPP Measurements Are Domain-Independent by Construction (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19275524) Technical Note: Measured Model Substitution Under Valid Agent Credentials (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19342848) Technical Note: Artifact Identity Is Not Runtime Identity — Trustfall Lite and the Boundary of File-Level Model Verification (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20019127) Formal Verification Stack for Neural Network Structural Identity (IT-PUF Coq Proofs) (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18930621) Copyright (c) 2026 Anthony Ray Coslett / Fall Risk AI, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Confidential and Proprietary. Patent Pending (Applications 63/982,893, 63/990,487, 63/996,680, 64/003,244).

Kexin Lin, Joe Zhu

No abstract is available for this record.