Index |  Research ▾  |  Verification ▾  | About
SRCH:91EA0C54

What is the comparative impact of syntax-aware text preprocessing on the false positive rates of Llama3, Codes

Submitted: 29 May 2026
Review score: 9.00/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Gate status: Unverified
Quality tier: Flagship candidate
Verified claims: 9
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20441000

Abstract

Abstract: Abstract The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has opened new avenues across various fields, including cybersecurity, which faces an evolving threat landscape and demand for innovative technologies. Despite initial explorations into the application of LLMs in cybersecurity, there is a lack of a comprehensive overview of this research area. This paper addresses this gap by providing a systematic literature review, covering the analysis of over 300 works, encompassing 25 LLMs and more than 10 downstream scenarios. Our comprehensive overview addresses three key research questions:

Research Question

What is the comparative impact of syntax-aware text preprocessing on the false positive rates of Llama3, Codestral, and Deepseek R1 when evaluating security vulnerabilities in diverse programming languages?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims9
Claim record sourcenot publicly specified

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

Truth-Engine Gate Verdict

StatusUnverified
GateGate 2 — Verification (formal proof or sandbox reproduction)
ReasonPublished before the Gate 2 verification pipeline was activated (2026-06-10). No formal proof or sandbox reproduction has been attempted for this record.
Evaluated2026-06-10T06:30:49+00:00

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

TierFlagship candidate
BasisReview score, verified-claim count, and public artifact coverage meet flagship-candidate thresholds.

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

Quality Dimensions

Evidence strength MEDIUM
Citation grounding MEDIUM
Uncertainty disclosure MEDIUM
Reproducibility status HIGH

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

Correction Record

StatusCURRENT
Correction count0
Manifest contractpaper-manifest-v1.1
Correction contractcorrection-record-v1

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

Provenance

PublisherAssignee Research
Public provenanceL4, External archival record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordRegistered
Claim lineage9 aggregate source-grounded claims
Review methodAutomated multi-reviewer assessment
Quality guideHow to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links
Provenance contractsource-provenance-v1
NoteMachine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research.