MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6930199428 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.10153319

Whodunit: Classifying Code as Human Authored or GPT-4 Generated - A case study on CodeChef problems

2024· article· en· W6930199428 sur OpenAlexaff

Notice bibliographique

RevueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueWnt/β-catenin signaling in development and cancer
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Waterloo
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésClassifier (UML)StylometryGenetic programmingSource codeCode (set theory)Generative grammar

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) assistants such as GitHub Copilot and ChatGPT, built on large language models like GPT-4, are revolutionizing how programming tasks are performed, raising questions about whether code is authored by generative AI models. Such questions are of particular interest to educators, who worry that these tools enable a new form of academic dishonesty, in which students submit AI generated code as their own work. Our research explores the viability of using code stylometry and machine learning to distinguish between GPT-4 generated and human-authored code. Our dataset comprises human-authored solutions from CodeChef and AI-authored solutions generated by GPT-4. Our classifier outperforms baselines, with an F1-score and AUC-ROC score of 0.91. A variant of our classifier that excludes gameable features (e.g., empty lines, whitespace) still performs well with an F1-score and AUC-ROC score of 0.89. We also evaluated our classifier with respect to the difficulty of the programming problem and found that there was almost no difference between easier and intermediate problems, and the classifier performed only slightly worse on harder problems. Our study shows that code stylometry is a promising approach for distinguishing between GPT-4 generated code and human-authored code. # Whodunit: CodeChef AI & Human Solutions Dataset This repository contains the data for the [CodeChef](https://www.codechef.com/) problems and the code used to collect, extract code-style and code complexity features from it, as well as the code to build and evaluate the classifiers for the paper `Whodunit: Classifying Code as Human Authored or GPT-4 Generated - A case study on CodeChef problems`. It also contains the modified baseline code. ## Data Collection The data corresponds to `399` problems filtered from the initial set of `1100` problems. The code used for collection and filtering can be found in the scripts directory. The final data is stored as described below. ### Files - `final_dataset.json`: Contains the data for all the problems on CodeChef. - `final_successful_dataset.json`: Contains the same data as `final_dataset.json` but the `ai_solutions` field only contains the solutions that successfully passed the public test cases. The `final_files` directory contains zipped sets of python files (binned into `easy`, `medium` and `hard` difficulties) that were used for the experiments in the paper. - `unverified.zip`: Contains 2 Human and 2 AI solutions for each problem. - `verified.zip`: Contains solutions that are verified to pass the public test cases. - `sampled.zip`: Contains a random set of problems sources from the `unverified` set such that it matches the distribution of the `verified` set. ### Data Format The JSON data is stored as a nested dictionary. The top level keys are the `11 difficulty levels` of CodeChef. Each difficulty level is a dictionary with the key being the `problem_code_id` on CodeChef and the value being the data for the problem. The data for each problem is structured in a dictionary with the following keys: - `constraints`: A string describing any constraints related to the problem. - `subtasks`: A string detailing the subtasks associated with the problem. - `sample_test_cases`: An array of dictionaries, each representing a public test case. Each test case includes: - `input`: The input given to the problem. - `output`: The expected output for the given input. - `explanation`: A detailed explanation of why the output is as expected. - `problem_statement`: A string describing the problem, its background, and requirements. - `input_format`: A string describing the format in which input is provided. - `output_format`: A string describing the format in which output is expected. - `problem_name`: The name of the problem. - `user_tags`: An array of strings representing user-defined tags for the problem. - `computed_tags`: An array of strings representing system-generated tags for the problem. - `problem_code_id`: A string representing the unique code ID of the problem. - `difficulty_level`: A string or number indicating the difficulty level of the problem. - `ai_solutions`: An array of strings, each representing GPT-4 (v0613) generated solution to the problem. - `human_solutions`: An array of dictionaries, each containing details about a solution submitted by a user, which includes: - `id`: A unique identifier for the solution. - `submission_date`: The date of submission. - `language`: The programming language used. - `username`: The username of the submitter. - `user_rating_star`: The user's rating. - `contest_code`: The code of the contest in which the solution was submitted. - `tooltip`: Status of the solution (e.g., accepted, rejected). - `score`: The score achieved by the solution. - `points`: The points achieved by the solution. - `icon`: A link to an icon representing the status of the solution. - `time`: The execution time of the solution. - `memory`: The memory used by the solution. - `solution`: A unique identifier for the solution. - `code`: The actual code of the solution. **Note:** The `input_format`, `output_format` and `constraints` fields are not available for older problems on CodeChef. In such cases, the information is present in the `problem_statement` field. ## Feature Extraction Before extracting the features, the comments and multi-line strings are to be removed by running the `scripts/remove_all_comments.py` script. This script accepts the `source_directory`, `destination_directory` and `output_file_path` which are the paths to the directory containing the files, the directory to store the files with comments removed and the path to a file that logs information about the file and removal process. The code for extracting the code-style and code complexity features from the dataset can be found in the `script/feature_extraction` directory. This directory has 3 files: `extract_main_features.py`, `extract_non_gameable_features.ipynb`, and `extract_with_halstead_features.ipynb` corresponding to the 3 different feature sets used in the paper. These scripts read the files from the input path provided and outputs the extracted features to the output path provided. The extracted features are stored in the `data/features` directory from which 8 features files are generated. The features files are named as follows: - `main_features.csv`: Contains the main classifier's features (`RQ1`). - `with_halstead_features.csv`: Contains the halstead features (`RQ1`). - `non_gameable_features.csv`: Contains the non-gameable features (`RQ2`). - `correct_solutions_features.csv`: Contains the features for solutions that passed the public test cases (`RQ3`). - `sampled_solutions_features.csv`: Contains the features for solutions sampled from the unverified set (`RQ3`). - `easy_problems_features.csv`: Contains the features for solutions to the easy problems (`RQ4`). - `medium_problems_features.csv`: Contains the features for solutions to the intermediate problems (`RQ4`). - `hard_problems_features.csv`: Contains the features for solutions to the hard problems (`RQ4`). **Note:** The extraction scripts require that the directory to the respective dataset is provided as input and the output path is specified. The output path in this package is the `data/features` directory. ## Classification There are 8 scripts corresponding to the 8 different classifiers used in the paper and the 8 extracted features files. The scripts are found in the `scripts/classification` directory. The scripts are named as follows: - `main_classification.py`: Contains the code for the main classifier (`RQ1`). - `with_halstead_classification.py`: Contains the code for the halstead classifier (`RQ1`). - `non_gameable_classification.py`: Contains the code for the non-gameable classifier (`RQ2`). - `correct_solutions_classification.py`: Contains the code for the classifier trained on solutions that passed the public test cases (`RQ3`). - `sampled_solutions_classification.py`: Contains the code for the classifier trained on solutions sampled from the unverified set (`RQ3`). - `easy_problems_classification.py`: Contains the code for the classifier trained on solutions to the easy problems (`RQ4`). - `medium_problems_classification.py`: Contains the code for the classifier trained on solutions to the intermediate problems (`RQ4`). - `hard_problems_classification.py`: Contains the code for the classifier trained on solutions to the hard problems (`RQ4`). Each of these scripts accept a `.csv` file containing the features as input and prints out the results. The scripts also display the SHAP plot for the top 10 features. ## For more information, please refer to the `README.md file`

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,020
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,041

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,099
Tête enseignante GPT0,331
Écart entre enseignants0,232 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Même sujetWnt/β-catenin signaling in development and cancer→Travaux en français237 207→