SCS-Gan: Learning Functionality-Agnostic Stylometric Representations for Source Code Authorship Verification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the number of anonymous script-based fileless malware attacks, software copyright disputes, and code plagiarism issues has increased rapidly. In the literature, automated Code Authorship Analysis (CAA) techniques have been proposed to reduce the manual effort in identifying those attacks and issues. Most CAA techniques aim to solve the task of Authorship Attribution (AA), i.e., identifying the actual author of a source code fragment from a given set of candidate authors. However, in many real-world scenarios, investigators do not have a predefined set of authors containing the actual author at the time of investigation, i.e., contradicting AA's assumption. Additionally, existing AA techniques ignore the influence of code functionality when identifying the authorship, which leads to biased matching simply based on code functionality. Different from AA, the task of (extreme) Authorship Verification (AV) is to decide if two texts were written by the same person or not. AV techniques do not need a predefined author set and thus could be applied in more code authorship-related applications than AA. To our knowledge, there is no previous work attempting to solve the AV problem for the source code. To fill the gap, we propose a novel adversarial neural network, namely SCS-Gan, that can learn a stylometric representation of code for automated AV. With the multi-head attention mechanism, SCS-Gan focuses on the code parts that are most informative regarding personal styles and generates functionality-agnostic stylometric representations through adversarial training. We benchmark SCS-Gan and two state-of-the-art code representation models on four out-of-sample datasets collected from a real-world programming competition. Our experiment results show that SCS-Gan outperforms the baselines on all four out-of-sample datasets.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".