Workload Identification with Physical Side Channels for AI Governance
Simone Gargiulo, Gabriel Kulp
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 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 20kHz 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 ≥ 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 ≥ 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.
Create a lesson
Related papers
Capability-Gated Language Models: Security Composes, Utility Does Not
Patrikas Vanagas, Augustas Mačijauskas, Laurynas Lopata
Don't Trust the Code, Check Its Effects: Runtime Refinement for Regenerated Systems Code Under an Adversarial Generator
Jinhao Hu, Ashvin Goel, Laurent Bindschaedler
NeuroPriv: Adversarial Representation Learning for Privacy in Wearable EEG Systems
Sarmistha Sarna Gomasta, Bhawana Chhaglani, Prashant Shenoy
OreProof: Verifiable Provenance with Limited Disclosure for Critical-Minerals Supply Chains Using Zero-Knowledge Proofs
Oleksandr Hrabar, Hossein Arshadi Soufiani, Henry M. Kim et al.
Delegation Without Trust: An Empirical Gap Analysis of Identity, Authorization, and Runtime Governance in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
Panduranga Sai Varma Dantuluri, Jyotirmoy Sundi
DUPIN: Attack Learning Is Still Needed! Demonstrating Few-Shot after Unsupervised Pretraining Is A Nimble Forensics Learner
Chanwoo Bae, Hailun Ding, Shiqing Ma et al.