REVIEW 3 cited by
CipherBank: Exploring the Boundary of LLM Reasoning Capabilities through Cryptography Challenges
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities, especially the recent advancements in reasoning, such as o1 and o3, pushing the boundaries of AI. Despite these impressive achievements in mathematics and coding, the reasoning abilities of LLMs in domains requiring cryptographic expertise remain underexplored. In this paper, we introduce CipherBank, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of LLMs in cryptographic decryption tasks. CipherBank comprises 2,358 meticulously crafted problems, covering 262 unique plaintexts across 5 domains and 14 subdomains, with a focus on privacy-sensitive and real-world scenarios that necessitate encryption. From a cryptographic perspective, CipherBank incorporates 3 major categories of encryption methods, spanning 9 distinct algorithms, ranging from classical ciphers to custom cryptographic techniques. We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs on CipherBank, e.g., GPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, and cutting-edge reasoning-focused models such as o1 and DeepSeek-R1. Our results reveal significant gaps in reasoning abilities not only between general-purpose chat LLMs and reasoning-focused LLMs but also in the performance of current reasoning-focused models when applied to classical cryptographic decryption tasks, highlighting the challenges these models face in understanding and manipulating encrypted data. Through detailed analysis and error investigations, we provide several key observations that shed light on the limitations and potential improvement areas for LLMs in cryptographic reasoning. These findings underscore the need for continuous advancements in LLM reasoning capabilities.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Can One Domain Help Others? A Data-Centric Study on Multi-Domain Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning
Training a Qwen2.5-7B model with GRPO on math and puzzle data improves both domains, code transfer depends on the starting model, and template or reward mismatches sharply hurt performance.
-
REST: Stress Testing Large Reasoning Models by Asking Multiple Problems at Once
Asking a reasoning model several problems at once reveals large accuracy drops and exposes differences that single-question benchmarks miss.
-
Should LLM Safety Be More Than Refusing Harmful Instructions?
LLMs that can decrypt common ciphers show safety failures split across two dimensions, refusing too much or generating unsafe output, and current defenses fix one side while breaking the other.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.