paperbot · PL 论文追踪

全部论文 待读 收藏

P2 An Empirical Study to Evaluate AIGC Detectors on Code Content

评估 AIGC 检测器在代码内容上的实证研究
ASE Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering2024匹配度 2/10 · 论文聚焦AIGC代码检测器的经验评测,属于LLM与软件工程交叉,但与用户核心方向(静态分析、形式化验证、浮点程序分析、贝叶斯程序分析)无直接关系,也未涉及Agentic程序分析或利用LLM改进静态分析。引用 14 inbox
JianWang, Shangqing Liu, Xiaofei Xie, Yi Li
crossref: 2026-09-12dblp: 2026-09-12

AI 速览

一句话:首次系统评测 13 个 AIGC 检测器在 223 万条代码相关内容上的表现,发现其效果弱于自然语言且泛化困难。

论文针对 AIGC(尤其大语言模型)生成代码内容带来的学术诚信、Stack Overflow 问答等滥用风险展开实证研究。作者选取 GPT-3.5、WizardCoder 与 CodeLlama 三个先进模型,构建覆盖问答(15 万)、代码摘要(100 万)与代码生成(110 万)共 223 万条代码相关内容的综合数据集,并对 6 个商业与 7 个开源共 13 个 AIGC 检测器进行评测。结果显示:检测器在代码相关数据上的表现普遍弱于自然语言数据;微调可提升检测性能,尤其在同一领域内容上有效,但跨领域泛化仍是挑战。

问题
现有 AIGC 检测器主要在自然语言数据上被开发和评估,其在 LLM 生成代码相关内容上的有效性尚不明确。
方法
使用 GPT-3.5、WizardCoder、CodeLlama 生成覆盖问答、代码摘要与代码生成的三类代码相关内容,构建 223 万条样本的数据集,并评测 6 个商业与 7 个开源检测器。
评估
在自建数据集上对比 13 个检测器的检测性能,并考察微调带来的提升以及跨领域泛化能力。
原文摘要(Abstract)

Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) has garnered considerable attention for its impressive performance, with Large Language Models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, emerging as a leading AIGC model that produces high-quality responses across various applications, including software development and maintenance. Despite its potential, the misuse of LLMs, especially in security and safety-critical domains, such as academic integrity and answering questions on Stack Overflow, poses significant concerns. Numerous AIGC detectors have been developed and evaluated on natural language data. However, their performance on code-related content generated by LLMs remains unexplored.To fill this gap, in this paper, we present an empirical study evaluating existing AIGC detectors in the software domain. We select three state-of-the-art LLMs, i.e., GPT-3.5, WizardCoder and CodeLlama, for machine-content generation. We further created a comprehensive dataset including 2.23M samples comprising code-related content for each model, encompassing popular software activities like Q&A (150K), code summarization (1M), and code generation (1.1M). We evaluated thirteen AIGC detectors, comprising six commercial and seven open-source solutions, assessing their performance on this dataset. Our results indicate that AIGC detectors perform less on code-related data than natural language data. Fine-tuning can enhance detector performance, especially for content within the same domain; but generalization remains a challenge.CCS CONCEPTS• General and reference → Empirical studies; • Security and privacy → Social aspects of security and privacy; • Computing methodologies → Natural language generation.

链接与引用

DOI 原文 · PDF(开放获取) · DBLP

BibTeX
@inproceedings{0067LX024,
  title = {An Empirical Study to Evaluate AIGC Detectors on Code Content},
  author = {JianWang and Shangqing Liu and Xiaofei Xie and Yi Li},
  booktitle = {ASE},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.1145/3691620.3695468}
}