Discrepancy in Llama-3.1-8B Long-Context Reasoning Accuracy Across Evaluation Frameworks

Abstract

Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into secure software development workflows, a critical question remains unanswered: can these models not only detect insecure code but also reliably classify vulnerabilities according to standardized taxonomies? In this work, we conduct a systematic evaluation of three state-of-the-art LLMs - Llama3, Codestral, and Deepseek R1 - using a carefully filtered subset of the Big-Vul dataset annotated with eight representative Common Weakness Enumeration categories. Adopting a closed-world classification setup, we assess each model's perf

Research Question

What is the discrepancy in long-context reasoning accuracy for Llama-3.1-8B across different evaluation frameworks when testing needle-in-a-haystack scenarios?

Verification Level

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Truth-Engine Gate Verdict

This record has not completed Gate 2 of the verification pipeline (a type-checked Lean4 proof for mathematical claims, or a sealed-sandbox reproduction for empirical claims). It is a literature synthesis only. VERIFIED requires an attached reproducible artifact (Lean4 proof source, or repro script and results) before this status can be set; it is not derived from review score or claim count.

Quality Tier

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance