Modulith

Composable AI. Provable Control.

We build AI systems from independently trained frozen specialist modules — enabling provable capability control, full attribution, and regulatory compliance by construction.

Compose

Assemble domain-specific AI from a library of frozen specialist modules. Each module is independently trained. The system automatically selects the optimal modules for each input position. Add capabilities by adding modules. No retraining.

Control

Remove a capability by removing its module. Add it back — it returns. Instantly. No retraining, no fine-tuning, no gradient computation. Full per-position attribution trail shows exactly which module contributed what.

Prove

Mathematically verify that a capability is present or absent. Formal proofs in Lean 4. Designed for EU AI Act compliance, GDPR data removal, and regulatory frameworks requiring demonstrable AI governance.

Patent pending · UK IPO 2606268.7 · 2026

Modulith Ltd · Registered in England and Wales

Research

Formal Verification of Modular Compositional AI Systems

We investigate six safety properties that become structurally tractable in AI systems built from independently trained, permanently frozen, sparsely composed modules: attribution, guaranteed forgetting, non-degradation, cross-user isolation, bounded compute, and compositional monotonicity. We present empirical evidence from a production-scale system and outline a formal proof programme targeting machine-verified certificates in Lean 4.

Schulte-Zurhausen, K.D. (2026). "Open Problems in Formal Verification of Modular Compositional AI Systems." Modulith Research CIC.

The assessment methodology is deployed in production at Modulith Lab, where the same composition architecture evaluates frontier AI models against 24 formal properties.

Validated Properties
Attribution

Every output position decomposes exactly into per-module contributions via the composition graph. Routing weights provide a complete attribution trail at inference time.

Guaranteed Forgetting

Removing a module provably eliminates all associated knowledge. Empirically validated: removal residual below 1% of pre-removal capability. Output returns to exact baseline.

Non-Degradation

Adding modules cannot corrupt existing capabilities. Empirically validated: degradation bound below 2% across all tested configurations. Zero regression on module addition.

Bounded Compute

Inference cost is O(K) regardless of total pool size. A system with 100 modules and one with 10,000 modules run at identical speed. Formally proven.

Cross-User Isolation

User-specific modules have zero influence on other users. Architectural guarantee from independent training and frozen weights — no shared gradient, no information leakage.

Structural Isolation

Remove any module — output returns to exact baseline. Measured difference: 0.000000. Impossible in monolithic systems where knowledge, capability, and style are entangled.

Lean 4 Formal Verification

Every compliance predicate in the Modulith assessment framework is defined as a Lean 4 formal specification. Lean 4 is an interactive theorem prover developed at Microsoft Research. When it accepts a proof, the result has been mechanically checked by a trusted kernel. No human judgment in the verification step. The following four theorem categories guarantee the integrity of every published assessment.

Theorem I
Decidability

Every compliance predicate can be mechanically evaluated. Given a specification and a measurement, the answer is always PASS or FAIL — never undefined, never ambiguous. This eliminates the class of error where two evaluators disagree because the scoring rule is vague.

-- Every predicate is decidable (machine-checkable) instance accuracy_decidable (spec : AccuracySpec) (result : AccuracyResult) : Decidable (satisfies_accuracy spec result) := inferInstance
Verified in Lean 4
Theorem II
Threshold Monotonicity

If a model passes a stricter threshold, it automatically passes any looser threshold. This prevents the paradox where tightening a standard could flip a result from FAIL to PASS — a class of bug that is impossible to detect without formal verification.

-- Passing stricter implies passing looser theorem accuracy_threshold_monotone (spec_strict spec_loose : AccuracySpec) (result : AccuracyResult) (h : spec_loose.threshold_permille ≤ spec_strict.threshold_permille) (h_pass : satisfies_accuracy spec_strict result) : satisfies_accuracy spec_loose result := by unfold satisfies_accuracy at * exact Nat.le_trans (Nat.mul_le_mul_right _ h) h_pass
Verified in Lean 4
Theorem III
Compositional Correctness

The overall assessment decomposes into independent sub-assessments. Passing Article 15 means passing accuracy AND robustness AND cybersecurity — this conjunction is proven, not assumed. Each sub-check is independently verifiable.

-- Composite compliance decomposes correctly theorem art15_decomposition (a : Art15Assessment) : satisfies_art15 a ↔ (satisfies_accuracy a.accuracy_spec a.accuracy_result ∧ satisfies_robustness a.robustness_spec a.robustness_result ∧ satisfies_cybersecurity a.cybersecurity_spec a.cybersecurity_result) := by rfl
Verified in Lean 4
Theorem IV
Calibrated Abstention

A model that abstains on uncertain queries (“I don’t know”) cannot lower its measured accuracy by doing so. Honest uncertainty is never penalised — a critical property for deployment in regulated contexts.

-- Abstaining cannot lower measured accuracy theorem calibrated_abstention (spec : AccuracySpec) (r_all r_selective : AccuracyResult) (h_correct : r_all.correct = r_selective.correct) (h_fewer : r_selective.answered ≤ r_all.answered) (h_pass : satisfies_accuracy spec r_all) : satisfies_accuracy spec r_selective := by unfold satisfies_accuracy at * rw [h_correct] at h_pass exact Nat.le_trans (Nat.mul_le_mul_left _ h_fewer) h_pass
Verified in Lean 4
24
Formal predicates
4
Theorem categories
72+
Proven theorems
0
Unverified predicates

Full predicate definitions and theorem statements are published in the formal specifications repository. Proof implementations are available under commercial license. The Lean 4 kernel independently verifies every assessment — if the Python scoring and the Lean verification disagree on any property, the report is blocked from publication.

In Production

These proofs power every assessment published by Modulith Lab — 18 AI models assessed weekly against 24 Lean 4 verified properties. Reports issued independently by Modulith Research CIC.

View Modulith Lab →
Publications

Schulte-Zurhausen, K.D. (2026). Open Problems in Formal Verification of Modular Compositional AI Systems. Modulith Research CIC. Under review: IEEE AIxSoftware 2026 (Summer Edition).

Progress

Training in progress — TPU fleet active

215+ specialist modules across 17 domains. Automated fleet of 10 TPU v6e-8 VMs producing new modules continuously. Architecture validated at scale: adaptive routing correctly selects domain specialists for every input.

Architecture
1–6
Modules active (adaptive)
215+
Specialist modules trained
O(K)
Inference cost — constant in N

Traditional AI systems activate every parameter for every input — cost scales with model size. Modulith activates K specialist modules per position from a pool of N. Inference cost is constant regardless of how large the pool grows. Knowledge scales independently of compute. Validated: 215+ modules, same inference cost as 4.

Milestones
Architecture Validation

Independent training, frozen composition, automatic routing, cross-domain improvement, structural isolation, and capability control demonstrated across multiple scales.

Production Scale

215+ specialist modules in production pool across 17 domains — code, mathematics, systems, chat, instructions, knowledge, and more. Automated fleet of 10 Google Cloud TPU v6e-8 VMs with self-healing dispatch, 5-layer quality gates, and uniqueness pressure. Pool growing continuously.

First Application: AI Safety Assessment Engine

The Modulith Lab assessment pipeline is the first deployment of the composition architecture. Three independently trained frozen specialist modules compose via the same routing mechanism described above.

The Lean 4 formal specifications serve dual purpose:

• Define safety properties for the research programme
• Generate test prompts for the assessment engine

Fresh prompts auto-generated weekly from the same specs. The pipeline runs on consumer hardware (1.4GB VRAM) at zero marginal cost. The architecture's first proof: evaluating AI safety using modular composition.

Architecture Validated at Scale

49 modules tested across 16 domains on A100 80GB. Routing correctly selects the right specialist for every prompt — code routes to code modules, maths to maths, chat to chat. Adaptive team size: the system uses 1 module when a solo specialist is optimal, up to 6 when cross-domain composition helps. Self-organising routing discovers domain boundaries without labels. Five composition strategies benchmarked end-to-end.

🟡
Safety Proofs

Position paper submitted to IEEE AIxSoftware 2026. Formal verification programme for six safety properties. Machine-verified proof certificates in Lean 4.

Deployment

Encrypted inference containers for regulated industries. Full attribution, guaranteed forgetting, EU AI Act compliance by construction.

Organisations

Modulith Ltd — commercial entity. Patent holder. Licensing and deployment.

Modulith Research CIC — community interest company. Open research into modular AI architectures with provable safety properties. Issues all assessment reports independently.

Modulith Lab — production application of the formal verification framework. Independent AI model assessments against 24 Lean 4 verified properties. 18 models assessed. Reports issued by Modulith Research CIC.