Papers › Efficient Provably Secure Linguistic Steganography via Range Coding

Efficient Provably Secure Linguistic Steganography via Range Coding

9 Apr 2026arXiv:2604.08052added by Syntology

Ruiyi Yan, Yugo Murawaki

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Linguistic steganography involves embedding secret messages within seemingly innocuous texts to enable covert communication. Provable security, which is a long-standing goal and key motivation, has been extended to language-model-based steganography. Previous provably secure approaches have achieved perfect imperceptibility, measured by zero Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence, but at the expense of embedding capacity. In this paper, we attempt to directly use a classic entropy coding method (range coding) to achieve secure steganography, and then propose an efficient and provably secure linguistic steganographic method with a rotation mechanism. Experiments across various language models show that our method achieves around 100% entropy utilization (embedding efficiency) for embedding capacity, outperforming the existing baseline methods. Moreover, it achieves high embedding speeds (up to 1554.66 bits/s on GPT-2). The code is available at github.com/ryehr/RRC_steganography.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

13 samples harvested; 9 ran; 2 honoured the contract we drafted; 4 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 13 of the 13 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from ryehr/RRC_steganography. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2604.08052, was issued in April 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections