-
Machines
Conceptualisation and Implementation of a ROS-Based Robotic Cell for a Flexible Pre-Assembly Task -
Textiles
Recent Advances in Arc-Flash Protective Textiles: Materials, Mechanisms, and Performance -
Poultry
Effects of Dietary Phytobiotic Mixtures on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Intestinal Histomorphology, Cecal Microbiota, and Antioxidant Status in Fattening Ducks -
Foods
Influence of Production System on the Physical, Compositional and Rheological Properties of Egg White and Yolk in Raw and Heat-Treated (Grilled) States -
Forecasting
The Impact of Occupancy Dynamics on Indoor CO2 Forecasting: A Cross-Scenario Evaluation
evaluates whether large language models (LLMs) can perform comparable analysis. We
test GPT and DeepSeek in chat and reasoning modes over three runs on 130 obfuscated
AnB/AnBx protocols covering [...] Read more.
evaluates whether large language models (LLMs) can perform comparable analysis. We
test GPT and DeepSeek in chat and reasoning modes over three runs on 130 obfuscated
AnB/AnBx protocols covering 388 security goals, scored against ProVerif and OFMC. Each
provider uses a single model in both modes, switching reasoning on and off, so both
contrasts isolate reasoning itself. Chat models achieve 72.7% recall at 27.3% precision for
GPT and 69.3% recall at 27.2% precision for DeepSeek. Reasoning models reverse this
trade-off, reaching 66.5% precision and 54.5% recall for GPT and 45.4% precision and
57.3% recall for DeepSeek. Enabling reasoning lifts precision from 27.3% to 64.8% for
GPT and from 27.2% to 44.4% for DeepSeek on the consolidated verdict. The goal set
is imbalanced, with 89 vulnerable goals against 299 secure ones; a trivial always-secure
predictor scores 77.1% accuracy, which only GPT reasoning exceeds. All models perform
worst on authentication goals: reasoning models detect well under half of injective and
non-injective agreement attacks, whereas chat models over-flag them at low precision.
Confidentiality is the exception, with F1 up to 95.7% in reasoning mode. Verdicts are
unstable across runs: identical on 89.7% of goals for GPT reasoning, 74.0% for DeepSeek
reasoning, 70.1% for GPT chat, and 61.6% for DeepSeek chat. Self-reported confidence
is uniformly high yet shows no meaningful correlation with correctness. All results rest
on a single zero-shot prompt and two model providers, which limits generalisability.
On this benchmark, LLMs do not match formal verification, but may serve, at best, as
pre-screening filters. Full article
Open Access Journals
-
Sustainability
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.1 -
Applied Sciences
IMPACT
FACTOR
2.9 -
IJMS
IMPACT
FACTOR
5.6 -
JCM
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.3 -
Sensors
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.0 -
Electronics
IMPACT
FACTOR
2.9 -
Energies
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.9 -
Materials
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.7 -
Healthcare
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.4 -
Buildings
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.4 -
Remote Sensing
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.3 -
Mathematics
IMPACT
FACTOR
2.3 -
Foods
IMPACT
FACTOR
6.0 -
Molecules
IMPACT
FACTOR
5.1 -
Diagnostics
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.8 -
Nutrients
IMPACT
FACTOR
5.8 -
Animals
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.2 -
Cancers
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.8 -
Processes
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.4 -
Plants
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.7 -
Water
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.5 -
Microorganisms
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.7 -
Polymers
IMPACT
FACTOR
5.8 -
Agriculture
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.5 -
Behavioral Sciences
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.2 -
Biomedicines
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.5 -
Land
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.5 -
Agronomy
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.1 -
Biology
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.3 -
Medicina
IMPACT
FACTOR
2.9 -
JMSE
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.2 -
Cells
IMPACT
FACTOR
6.0 -
Education Sciences
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.5 -
Life
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.9 -
Pharmaceuticals
IMPACT
FACTOR
5.7 -
Symmetry
IMPACT
FACTOR
2.2 -
Systems
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.8 -
Children
IMPACT
FACTOR
2.6 -
Genes
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.1 -
Pharmaceutics
IMPACT
FACTOR
6.9 -
Nanomaterials
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.8 -
Biomolecules
IMPACT
FACTOR
5.6 -
Antioxidants
IMPACT
FACTOR
8.2 -
Horticulturae
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.4 -
Forests
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.1 -
IJERPH
-
Machines
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.0 -
Veterinary Sciences
IMPACT
FACTOR
2.7 -
Bioengineering
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.4 -
Coatings
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.4 -
Religions
IMPACT
FACTOR
0.6 -
Metals
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.1 -
Entropy
IMPACT
FACTOR
2.1 -
Micromachines
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.5 -
Brain Sciences
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.4 -
Viruses
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.8 -
Insects
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.0 -
Pathogens
IMPACT
FACTOR
3.8 -
CIMB
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.1 -
Antibiotics
IMPACT
FACTOR
5.5 -
Minerals
IMPACT
FACTOR
2.7 -
Algorithms
IMPACT
FACTOR
2.6 -
Atmosphere
IMPACT
FACTOR
2.6 -
Gels
IMPACT
FACTOR
6.4 -
Information
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.3 -
Toxics
IMPACT
FACTOR
4.9




