Code Fingerprints: Disentangled Attribution of LLM-Generated Code
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has transformed modern software development by enabling automated code generation at scale. While these systems improve productivity, they introduce new challenges for software governance, accountability, and compliance. Existing research primarily focuses on distinguishing machine-generated code from human-written code; however, many practical scenarios--such as vulnerability triage, incident investigation, and licensing audits--require identifying which LLM produced a given code snippet. In this paper, we study the problem of model-level code attribution, which aims to determine the source LLM responsible for generated code. Although attribution is challenging, differences in training data, architectures, alignment strategies, and decoding mechanisms introduce model-dependent stylistic and structural variations that serve as generative fingerprints. Leveraging this observation, we propose the Disentangled Code Attribution Network (DCAN), which separates Source-Agnostic semantic information from Source-Specific stylistic representations. Through a contrastive learning objective, DCAN isolates discriminative model-dependent signals while preserving task semantics, enabling multi-class attribution across models and programming languages. To support systematic evaluation, we construct the first large-scale benchmark dataset comprising code generated by four widely used LLMs (DeepSeek, Claude, Qwen, and ChatGPT) across four programming languages (Python, Java, C, and Go). Experimental results demonstrate that DCAN achieves reliable attribution performance across diverse settings, highlighting the feasibility of model-level provenance analysis in software engineering contexts. The dataset and implementation are publicly available at https://github.com/mtt500/DCAN.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Mar 2026.
Builds on
18 of 27 references.
References · 18
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2023Qwen Technical Reportcited by 3,344
- 2020CodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languagescited by 1,310
- 2024DeepSeek-V2: A Strong, Economical, and Efficient Mixture-of-Experts Language Modelcited by 1,135
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
- 2024A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 658
- 2022UniXcoder: Unified Cross-Modal Pre-training for Code Representationcited by 361
- 2023OUTFOX: LLM-Generated Essay Detection Through In-Context Learning with Adversarially Generated Examplescited by 80
- 2025LeetCodeDataset: A Temporal Dataset for Robust Evaluation and Efficient Training of Code LLMscited by 70
- 2023AI-assisted coding: Experiments with GPT-4cited by 43
- 2024Can Large Language Models Identify Authorship?cited by 41
- 2024Who Wrote This? The Key to Zero-Shot LLM-Generated Text Detection Is GECScorecited by 27
6 more
- 2023Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Codescited by 24
- 2024Assessing AI Detectors in Identifying AI-Generated Code: Implications for Educationcited by 18
- 2024Distinguishing LLM-generated from Human-written Code by Contrastive Learningcited by 16
- 2024Uncovering LLM-Generated Code: A Zero-Shot Synthetic Code Detector via Code Rewritingcited by 11
- 2025CoDet-M4: Detecting Machine-Generated Code in Multi-Lingual, Multi-Generator and Multi-Domain Settingscited by 11
- 2024Is The Watermarking Of LLM-Generated Code Robust?cited by 8
Built on by
Not cited yet.