AuthAttLyzer-V2: Unveiling Code Authorship Attribution using Enhanced Ensemble Learning Models & Generating Benchmark Dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Source Code Authorship Attribution (SCAA) is crucial for software classification because it provides insights into the origin and behavior of software. By accurately identifying the author or group behind a piece of code, experts can better understand the motivations and techniques of developers. In the cybersecurity era, this attribution helps trace the source of malicious software, identify patterns in the code that may indicate specific threat actors or groups, and ultimately enhance threat intelligence and mitigation strategies. This paper presents AuthAttLyzer-V2, a new source code feature extractor for SCAA, focusing on lexical, semantic, syntactic, and N-gram features. Our research explores author identification in C++ by examining 24,000 source code samples from 3,000 authors. Our methodology integrates Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, and XGBoost models, enhanced with SHAP for interpretability. The study demonstrates how ensemble models can effectively discern individual coding styles, offering insights into the unique attributes of code authorship. This approach is pivotal in understanding and interpreting complex patterns in authorship attribution, especially for malware classification.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".