# On Developers' Self-Declaration of AI-Generated Code: An Analysis of Practices

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.16485 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.16485/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 26 of its 63 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Apr 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 26 of 26)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.00515/) (2024)
- [Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.09293/) (2021)
- [Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10620/) (2023)
- [The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.06590/) (2023)
- [Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.15000/) (2022)
- [GitHub Copilot AI pair programmer: Asset or Liability?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.15331/) (2022)
- [From ChatGPT to ThreatGPT: Impact of Generative AI in Cybersecurity and Privacy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.00691/) (2023)
- [An Empirical Study of the Non-determinism of ChatGPT in Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.02828/) (2023)
- [Refining ChatGPT-Generated Code: Characterizing and Mitigating Code Quality Issues](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.12596/) (2023)
- [Is ChatGPT the Ultimate Programming Assistant -- How far is it?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.11938/) (2023)
- [Evaluating the Code Quality of AI-Assisted Code Generation Tools: An Empirical Study on GitHub Copilot, Amazon CodeWhisperer, and ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.10778/) (2023)
- [Bugs in Large Language Models Generated Code: An Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.08937/) (2024)
- [No Need to Lift a Finger Anymore? Assessing the Quality of Code Generation by ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.04838/) (2023)
- [Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot Generated Code -- A Targeted Replication Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.11177/) (2023)
- [Correctness Assessment of Code Generated by Large Language Models Using Internal Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12934/) (2025)
- [Distinguishing LLM-generated from Human-written Code by Contrastive Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04704/) (2024)
- [Rocks Coding, Not Development--A Human-Centric, Experimental Evaluation of LLM-Supported SE Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05650/) (2024)
- [Whodunit: Classifying Code as Human Authored or GPT-4 Generated -- A case study on CodeChef problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04013/) (2024)
- [Exploring the Problems, their Causes and Solutions of AI Pair Programming: A Study on GitHub and Stack Overflow](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.01020/) (2023)
- [Can ChatGPT Support Developers? An Empirical Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11702/) (2024)
- [Automatically Recommend Code Updates: Are We There Yet?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.07048/) (2022)
- [Discriminating Human-authored from ChatGPT-Generated Code Via Discernable Feature Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.14397/) (2023)
- [Is This You, LLM? Recognizing AI-written Programs with Multilingual Code Stylometry](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14611/) (2024)
- [Tadashi: Enabling AI-Based Automated Code Generation With Guaranteed Correctness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03210/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Software Delegation Contracts: Measuring Reviewability in AI Coding-Agent Work](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.17099/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

AI code generation tools have gained significant popularity among developers, who use them to assist in software development due to their capability to generate code. Existing studies mainly explored the quality, e.g., correctness and security, of AI-generated code, while in real-world software development, the prerequisite is to distinguish AI-generated code from human-written code, which emphasizes the need to explicitly declare AI-generated code by developers. To this end, this study intends to understand the ways developers use to self-declare AI-generated code and explore the reasons why developers choose to self-declare or not. We conducted a mixed-methods study consisting of two phases. In the first phase, we mined GitHub repositories and collected 613 instances of AI-generated code snippets. In the second phase, we conducted a follow-up practitioners' survey, which received 111 valid responses. Our research revealed the practices followed by developers to self-declare AI-generated code. Most practitioners (76.6%) always or sometimes self-declare AI-generated code. In contrast, other practitioners (23.4%) noted that they never self-declare AI-generated code. The reasons for self-declaring AI-generated code include the need to track and monitor the code for future review and debugging, and ethical considerations. The reasons for not self-declaring AI-generated code include extensive modifications to AI-generated code and the developers' perception that self-declaration is an unnecessary activity. We finally provided guidelines for practitioners to self-declare AI-generated code, addressing ethical and code quality concerns.