Supporting Artifact Evaluation with LLMs: A Study with Published Security Research Papers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Artifact Evaluation (AE) is essential for ensuring the transparency and reliability of research, closing the gap between exploratory work and real-world deployment is particularly important in cybersecurity, particularly in IoT and CPSs, where large-scale, heterogeneous, and privacy-sensitive data meet safety-critical actuation. Yet, manual reproducibility checks are time-consuming and do not scale with growing submission volumes. In this work, we demonstrate that Large Language Models (LLMs) can provide powerful support for AE tasks: (i) text-based reproducibility rating, (ii) autonomous sandboxed execution environment preparation, and (iii) assessment of methodological pitfalls. Our reproducibility-assessment toolkit yields an accuracy of over 72% and autonomously sets up execution environments for 28% of runnable cybersecurity artifacts. Our automated pitfall assessment detects seven prevalent pitfalls with high accuracy (F1 > 92%). Hence, the toolkit significantly reduces reviewer effort and, when integrated into established AE processes, could incentivize authors to submit higher-quality and more reproducible artifacts. IoT, CPS, and cybersecurity conferences and workshops may integrate the toolkit into their peer-review processes to support reviewers' decisions on awarding artifact badges, improving the overall sustainability of the process.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Mar 2026.
Builds on
20 of 43 references.
References · 20
- 2025UI-TARS: Pioneering Automated GUI Interaction with Native Agentscited by 610
- 2020Dos and Don'ts of Machine Learning in Computer Securitycited by 102
- 2025DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Processcited by 100
- 2022Lost at C: A User Study on the Security Implications of Large Language Model Code Assistantscited by 91
- 2023Getting pwn'd by AI: Penetration Testing with Large Language Modelscited by 83
- 2024When LLMs Meet Cybersecurity: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 71
- 2024OpenReviewer: A Specialized Large Language Model for Generating Critical Scientific Paper Reviewscited by 65
- 2024Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Reviewcited by 53
- 2021How to avoid machine learning pitfalls: a guide for academic researcherscited by 35
- 2024What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?cited by 25
- 2024Large Language Models in Wireless Application Design: In-Context Learning-enhanced Automatic Network Intrusion Detectioncited by 16
- 2024Outside the Comfort Zone: Analysing LLM Capabilities in Software Vulnerability Detectioncited by 16
8 more
- 2025MMReview: A Multidisciplinary and Multimodal Benchmark for LLM-Based Peer Review Automationcited by 10
- 2020ReproducedPapers.org: Openly teaching and structuring machine learning reproducibilitycited by 5
- 2024LLM-Measure: Generating Valid, Consistent, and Reproducible Text-Based Measures for Social Science Researchcited by 5
- 2020Understanding and Improving Artifact Sharing in Software Engineering Researchcited by 4
- 2024Confronting the Reproducibility Crisis: A Case Study of Challenges in Cybersecurity AIcited by 2
- 2021Reproducible and Adaptable Log Data Generation for Sound Cybersecurity Experimentscited by 1
- 2021Collaboration is not Evil: A Systematic Look at Security Research for Industrial Usecited by 1
- 2024Research Artifacts in Software Engineering Publications: Status and Trendscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.