Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Supporting Artifact Evaluation with LLMs: A Study with Published Security Research Papers

David Heye, Karl Kindermann, Robin Decker, Johannes Lohmöller, Anastasiia Belova, Sandra Geisler, Klaus Wehrle, Jan Pennekamp · Mar 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Mar 6, 2026, 8:29 PM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Mar 13, 2026, 10:41 PM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.35

Abstract

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 ($F_1$ > 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.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
  • Extraction confidence is 0.35 (below strong-reference threshold).
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: 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.

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: 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.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: 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.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: 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.

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: Our reproducibility-assessment toolkit yields an accuracy of over 72% and autonomously sets up execution environments for 28% of runnable cybersecurity artifacts.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: 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.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.35
  • Flags: low_signal, possible_false_positive

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

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,… HFEPX signals include Automatic Metrics with confidence 0.35. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 13, 2026, 10:41 PM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • 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…
  • 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…

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Validate metric comparability (accuracy).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Low-signal flag detected: protocol relevance may be indirect.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • 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,…
  • 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…
  • Our reproducibility-assessment toolkit yields an accuracy of over 72% and autonomously sets up execution environments for 28% of runnable cybersecurity artifacts.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • 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,…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Category-Adjacent Papers (Broader Context)

These papers are nearby in arXiv category and useful for broader context, but not necessarily protocol-matched to this paper.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.

Post a Job Get a Quote