MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914961791 · doi:10.1145/3292577

Code Authorship Attribution

2019· review· en· W2914961791 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAuthorship Attribution and Profiling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceMalwareAttributionAuthorship attributionCode (set theory)Field (mathematics)CryptovirologyCategorizationData scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer securityProgramming languageSet (abstract data type)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Code authorship attribution is the process of identifying the author of a given code. With increasing numbers of malware and advanced mutation techniques, the authors of malware are creating a large number of malware variants. To better deal with this problem, methods for examining the authorship of malicious code are necessary. Code authorship attribution techniques can thus be utilized to identify and categorize the authors of malware. This information can help predict the types of tools and techniques that the author of a specific malware uses, as well as the manner in which the malware spreads and evolves. In this article, we present the first comprehensive review of research on code authorship attribution. The article summarizes various methods of authorship attribution and highlights challenges in the field.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.263
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it