Evaluating AIGC Detectors on Code Content
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) has garnered considerable attention for its impressive performance, with 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 ChatGPT poses significant concerns, especially in education and safetycritical domains. Numerous AIGC detectors have been developed and evaluated on natural language data. However, their performance on code-related content generated by ChatGPT remains unexplored. To fill this gap, in this paper, we present the first empirical study on evaluating existing AIGC detectors in the software domain. We created a comprehensive dataset including 492.5K samples comprising code-related content produced by ChatGPT, encompassing popular software activities like Q&A (115K), code summarization (126K), and code generation (226.5K). We evaluated six AIGC detectors, including three commercial and three open-source solutions, assessing their performance on this dataset. Additionally, we conducted a human study to understand human detection capabilities and compare them with the existing AIGC detectors. Our results indicate that AIGC detectors demonstrate lower performance on code-related data compared to natural language data. Fine-tuning can enhance detector performance, especially for content within the same domain; but generalization remains a challenge. The human evaluation reveals that detection by humans is quite challenging.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 11 Apr 2023.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 4; 2024: 4; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.
12 papers.
- 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 158
- 2024DF40: Toward Next-Generation Deepfake Detectioncited by 127
- 2023Testing of Detection Tools for AI-Generated Textcited by 89
- 2023A Survey on Detection of LLMs-Generated Contentcited by 71
- 2023Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Codescited by 24
- 2023An Empirical Study of AI Generated Text Detection Toolscited by 9
- 2024ChatGPT Code Detection: Techniques for Uncovering the Source of Codecited by 6
- 2024AIGCodeSet: A New Annotated Dataset for AI Generated Code Detectioncited by 5
- 2025Detection of LLM-Paraphrased Code and Identification of the Responsible LLM Using Coding Style Featurescited by 4
- 2025Who Writes What: Unveiling the Impact of Author Roles on AI-generated Text Detectioncited by 3
- 2025MultiAIGCD: A Comprehensive dataset for AI Generated Code Detection Covering Multiple Languages, Models,Prompts, and Scenarioscited by 2
- 2026IndicDetect: Evaluating Cross-Lingual LLM-Generated Text Detection for Hindi, Telugu, and Tamilcited by 0
- 2026IndicDetect: Evaluating Cross-Lingual LLM-Generated Text Detection for Hindi, Telugu, and Tamil30 Aug 2026
- 2025MultiAIGCD: A Comprehensive dataset for AI Generated Code Detection Covering Multiple Languages, Models,Prompts, and Scenarios29 Jul 2025
- 2025Detection of LLM-Paraphrased Code and Identification of the Responsible LLM Using Coding Style Features25 Feb 2025
- 2025Who Writes What: Unveiling the Impact of Author Roles on AI-generated Text Detection18 Feb 2025
- 2024AIGCodeSet: A New Annotated Dataset for AI Generated Code Detection21 Dec 2024
- 2024DF40: Toward Next-Generation Deepfake Detection19 Jun 2024
- 2024ChatGPT Code Detection: Techniques for Uncovering the Source of Code24 May 2024
- 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectors13 May 2024
- 2023A Survey on Detection of LLMs-Generated Content24 Oct 2023
- 2023Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Codes8 Oct 2023
- 2023An Empirical Study of AI Generated Text Detection Tools27 Sep 2023
- 2023Testing of Detection Tools for AI-Generated Text21 Jun 2023