Neural networks increasingly run on hardware outside the user's control (cloud GPUs, inference marketplaces, edge specialized accelerators) for both training and inference. Yet ML-as-a-Service reveals little about what actually ran or whether returned outputs faithfully reflect the intended inputs and models. Users lack recourse against service downgrades such as model swaps, quantization, graph rewrites, or discrepancies like altered advertisement embeddings. Verifying outputs is especially difficult because floating-point execution on heterogeneous accelerators is inherently non-deterministic. Existing approaches like zkML, deterministic replay, TEEs, and replication are either impractical for real floating-point neural networks or reintroduce the need to trust the vendor. We present TAO: a Tolerance-Aware Optimistic verification protocol for floating-point neural networks that accepts outputs within principled operator-level acceptance regions rather than requiring bitwise equality. TAO combines two complementary error models: (i) sound per-operator IEEE-754 worst-case bounds and (ii) tight empirical percentile profiles calibrated across hardware types. Discrepancies are resolved via a Merkle-anchored, threshold-guided interactive dispute game that recursively partitions the traced computation graph until one operator remains; at the leaf, adjudication reduces to either a lightweight theoretical-bound check or a small honest-majority vote against empirical thresholds. Unchallenged results finalize after a challenge window, without requiring trusted hardware or deterministic kernels.

The meteoric rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), with its rapidly expanding market capitalization, presents both transformative opportunities and critical challenges. Chief among these is the urgent need for a new, unified paradigm for trustworthy evaluation, as current benchmarks increasingly reveal critical vulnerabilities. Issues like data contamination and selective reporting by model developers fuel hype, while inadequate data quality control can lead to biased evaluations that, even if unintentionally, may favor specific approaches. As a flood of participants enters the AI space, this "Wild West" of assessment makes distinguishing genuine progress from exaggerated claims exceptionally difficult. Such ambiguity blurs scientific signals and erodes public confidence, much as unchecked claims would destabilize financial markets reliant on credible oversight from agencies like Moody's.In high-stakes human examinations (e.g., SAT, GRE), substantial effort is devoted to ensuring fairness and credibility; why settle for less in evaluating AI, especially given its profound societal impact? This position paper argues that a laissez-faire approach is untenable. For true and sustainable AI advancement, we call for a paradigm shift to a unified, live, and quality-controlled benchmarking framework—robust by construction rather than reliant on courtesy or goodwill. Accordingly, we dissect the systemic flaws undermining today’s evaluation ecosystem and distill the essential requirements for next-generation assessments. To concretize this position, we introduce the idea of PeerBench, a community-governed, proctored evaluation blueprint that seeks to improve security and credibility through sealed execution, item banking with rolling renewal, and delayed transparency. PeerBench is presented as a complementary, certificate-grade layer alongside open benchmarks, not a replacement. We discuss trade-offs and limits and call for further research on mechanism design, governance, and reliability guarantees. Our goal is to lay the groundwork for evaluations that restore integrity and deliver genuinely trustworthy measures of AI progress.

Recent reports claim that large language models (LLMs) now outperform elite humans in competitive programming. Drawing on knowledge from a group of medalists in international algorithmic contests, we revisit this claim, examining how LLMs differ from human experts and where limitations still remain. We introduce LiveCodeBench Pro, a benchmark composed of problems from Codeforces, ICPC, and IOI that are continuously updated to reduce the likelihood of data contamination. A team of Olympiad medalists annotates every problem for algorithmic categories and conducts a line-by-line analysis of failed model-generated submissions. Using this new data and benchmark, we find that frontier models still have significant limitations: without external tools, the best model achieves only 53\% pass@1 on medium-difficulty problems and 0\% on hard problems, domains where expert humans still excel. We also find that LLMs succeed at implementation-heavy problems but struggle with nuanced algorithmic reasoning and complex case analysis, often generating confidently incorrect justifications. High performance appears largely driven by implementation precision and tool augmentation, not superior reasoning. LiveCodeBench Pro thus highlights the significant gap to human grandmaster levels, while offering fine-grained diagnostics to steer future improvements in code-centric LLM reasoning.

In this paper, we propose a novel and energy-efficient blockchain system, CrowdMine, which exploits useful crowdsourcing computation to achieve decentralized consensus. CrowdMine solves user-proposed computing tasks and utilizes the computation committed to the task solving process to secure decentralized on-chain storage. With our designed “Proof of Crowdsourcing Work” (PoCW) protocol, our system provides an efficient paradigm for computation and storage in a trustless and decentralized environment. We also implement the system with 40 distributed nodes to demonstrate its performance and robustness.

Blockchains have seen growing traction with cryptocurrencies reaching a market cap of over 1 trillion dollars, major institution investors taking interests, and global impacts on governments, businesses, and individuals.