Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 4, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Open-weight language models that fit on a single consumer GPU are becoming capable on a growing range of tasks, and they matter because they can run locally without sending the code to a hosted service. Vulnerability reproduction, turning a vulnerability description into an input that crashes the vulnerable build, is a natural target for them, since it is an automated analysis task closer to test generation than to code comprehension and it runs against a build that must be executed rather than read. In order to assess whether current models can perform it, we evaluate twelve configurations of local models, spanning three generations, two architectures and three quantization levels, on ten CyberGym vulnerability-reproduction tasks, three runs each under one harness, and release the full artefact. We show that every configuration, down to the 4B model, solves most of the six easier tasks, and configurations separate only on the remaining four. For the harder tasks, the 27B model is required. Quantization did not change what the models solved in any matched pair, but it changed how fast they got there, and the mixture of experts reached the same scores in less wall clock. We also examine the agent trajectories. Almost every run we examined, including those that fail, names the vulnerable function and states the correct hypothesis, and what separates a solved task from an unsolved one is whether that hypothesis becomes a working input.