arXiv subjects

Lukas Fluri

Publications and source records attributed to Lukas Fluri.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

CryptanalysisBench: Can LLMs do Cryptanalysis?

Cryptanalysis - the task of finding attacks against cryptographic schemes - sits at the intersection of mathematical reasoning and cybersecurity, two areas where LLMs have advanced fastest. Cryptanalysis represents both a clean testbed for frontier reasoning (as practical attacks can be automatically verified) and a domain with unusually high stakes, since the primitives under study underpin our digital security. In this paper we ask whether LLMs can do cryptanalysis, and find that the answer is increasingly yes. We introduce CryptanalysisBench, 191 tasks across six families of cryptographic primitives (block ciphers, hash functions, etc.) drawn primarily from four NIST standardization competitions. Our benchmark consists of three tiers: (i) primitives with known practical breaks; (ii) primitives with no known practical break, evaluated both at full strength and as scaled-down variants; and (iii) a challenge set of production primitives at the frontier of cryptanalysis. Five frontier models (Claude Opus 4.8, Sonnet 5, Mythos 5, GPT 5.5, and the open-weights GLM 5.2) break 65%-86% of Tier 1 schemes, 6-12 Tier-2 schemes at full strength, and 24-61 across all scaled-down variants. Beyond deriving known results, models produce novel cryptanalysis, such as a key-recovery attack that exploits a design flaw in the SpoC AEAD and an error in KINDI's published CCA-security proof, both to the best of our knowledge not previously known. We release CryptanalysisBench as a tool to help track if (or when) AI cryptanalysis becomes a serious factor and as a scaffold for stress-testing candidate schemes before deployment. The attacks that the benchmark already surfaces are an early snapshot of a fast-moving frontier that may soon match, and in places exceed, the published state of the art.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Position: Anthropomorphic Misalignment Research Needs Stronger Evidence

We argue that many Anthropomorphic Misalignment Research (AMR) studies need stronger evidence to ensure that they can provide a robust foundation for critical safety decisions, such as model deployment and regulation. By evaluating failure modes across different misalignment concepts, such as deception, emergent misalignment, and sycophancy, we show how conceptual ambiguity, non-robust datasets, experimental design, and insufficient causal interventions can lead to overinterpretation of model behaviors. This position paper aims to offer guidance on evidentiary considerations that can help improve methodological rigor in AMR. To achieve this, we provide a clear call to action through a proposed framework of evidence levels and a diagnostic checklist. These shared standards will enable more productive scientific discourse and ensure that claims about AI risks rest on solid empirical foundations.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

The Perils of Optimizing Learned Reward Functions: Low Training Error Does Not Guarantee Low Regret

In reinforcement learning, specifying reward functions that capture the intended task can be very challenging. Reward learning aims to address this issue by learning the reward function. However, a learned reward model may have a low error on the data distribution, and yet subsequently produce a policy with large regret. We say that such a reward model has an error-regret mismatch. The main source of an error-regret mismatch is the distributional shift that commonly occurs during policy optimization. In this paper, we mathematically show that a sufficiently low expected test error of the reward model guarantees low worst-case regret, but that for any fixed expected test error, there exist realistic data distributions that allow for error-regret mismatch to occur. We then show that similar problems persist even when using policy regularization techniques, commonly employed in methods such as RLHF. We hope our results stimulate the theoretical and empirical study of improved methods to learn reward models, and better ways to measure their quality reliably.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Evaluating Superhuman Models with Consistency Checks

If machine learning models were to achieve superhuman abilities at various reasoning or decision-making tasks, how would we go about evaluating such models, given that humans would necessarily be poor proxies for ground truth? In this paper, we propose a framework for evaluating superhuman models via consistency checks. Our premise is that while the correctness of superhuman decisions may be impossible to evaluate, we can still surface mistakes if the model's decisions fail to satisfy certain logical, human-interpretable rules. We instantiate our framework on three tasks where correctness of decisions is hard to evaluate due to either superhuman model abilities, or to otherwise missing ground truth: evaluating chess positions, forecasting future events, and making legal judgments. We show that regardless of a model's (possibly superhuman) performance on these tasks, we can discover logical inconsistencies in decision making. For example: a chess engine assigning opposing valuations to semantically identical boards; GPT-4 forecasting that sports records will evolve non-monotonically over time; or an AI judge assigning bail to a defendant only after we add a felony to their criminal record.

cs.LG↗