Skip to content

EnigmaForge: The Question Is Hidden in the Story

Sep 2026 · 0 citations · 7 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

The headline measure is intuition: task success when handed only the story, with world reconstruction as the secondary axis: frontier models ran over 600 instances under three matched conditions and intuition reshuffles the leaderboard.

Abstract

Most benchmarks hand the model a question. EnigmaForge hands it a stack of old documents and no question at all. Buried in the letters, receipts, and logbook margins is a small logic puzzle whose solution is unique - proved by a SAT solver at generation time, with an ablation certificate showing every clue is load-bearing. Because instances are generated rather than collected, the corpus renews forever. The headline measure is intuition: task success when handed only the story, with world reconstruction as the secondary axis. Twenty-five frontier models ran over 600 instances (17,400 scored records) under three matched conditions. Intuition reshuffles the leaderboard: a 22x spread where fact recovery spans 1.6x, the second-best fact-recoverer ranks fourteenth, one model is indifferent to being told the question, and another is significantly better without it. Several models were blocked by their own content filters before reaching the puzzle - any benchmark scoring refusals as failure is quietly measuring filter behavior.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

CARAT: Do Materials LLMs Reason or Recite?

When a materials LLM answers a question about crystal structure, does it reason from the structure or copy an answer already printed in its input? Accuracy cannot tell: a structural description often prints the very field it is scored against. CARAT holds question and gold answer fixed across eight matched views, names...

Jia-Jun Wu, Jian Yang, Zi-Xiang Ni et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

Beyond the Sycophancy Score: How Task, Model, and Pressure Shape LLM Yielding

Large language models (LLMs) often abandon a correct answer, or endorse a user's position, once the user pushes back. This behavior, called sycophancy, is usually reported as a single rate per model, which says little about when it happens or how a user can avoid it. We study the conditions that produce it with 103,939...

Guang Yang, Homa Hosseinmardi, Feng-Chen Liu et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Sep 2026

Composition, Not Conversation: VLMs Lose the Scene, Not the Thread

Vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly reason over visual evidence that is cropped, segmented, retrieved, or revealed over time. Yet most VQA benchmarks present the complete image and question at once. We ask what models lose when the same information is fragmented. We introduce Layered-VQA, with 93 scenes and 300...

L. D. M. S. Sai Teja, Ufaq Khan, N. G. Krishna et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

Refusal Reads Only a Slice of What the Model Knows: Harm-Keyed Routing and Its Exceptions Across Model Families

Alignment applied after pretraining is shallow in a measurable way: a single direction in a model's residual stream can be edited out, and the model stops refusing harmful requests. That fact says how easily refusal can be removed, not what the refusal decision was reading in the first place. We ask what it reads, and...

Orion Reblitz-Richardson · 2 citations
#natural language process... Preprint Sep 2026

Are You Sure You're Sure? Two Confounds in a Sycophancy Benchmark

An audit of SycEval, which reports that objections raised before a model answers (preemptive) cause more caving than those raised after (in-context), and attributes the gap to timing, and builds the missing comparison and tests it on multiple-choice questions and SycEval's own free-form pipeline.

Atharva Gupta, A. Jindal, Lavanya Nigam et al. · 1 citation
Preprint Aug 2026

Shortcut Before Circuit: Document Statistics Time In-Context Conflict Resolution

The authors train 26M-parameter transformers on a synthetic language where recency and rarity are exactly coextensive, and separate them with a minimal causal edit that inverts one cue while holding the truth, token count and answer position fixed.

Yijun Liao, Fan-Wei Liang · 0 citations

Related blog posts

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.