Assessing AI Detectors in Identifying AI-Generated Code: Implications for Education
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Authors address the concern of educators regarding the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT in programming education
- Focus on potential exploitation of imperfections in Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) Detectors for academic misconduct
- Conducted an empirical study to examine how well AIGC Detectors can detect code generated by LLMs
- Generated code using different variants and collected a dataset consisting of 5,069 samples
- Created 13 sets of code problem variant prompts to instruct ChatGPT to generate outputs
- Assessed the performance of five AIGC detectors in distinguishing between human-written code and AI-generated code
- Existing AIGC Detectors perform poorly in accurately identifying AI-generated code compared to human-written code
- Highlights the need for further improvements in AIGC detection technology
- Emphasizes the challenges posed by LLMs in programming education
- Importance of developing robust AIGC Detectors to maintain academic integrity.
Authors: Wei Hung Pan, Ming Jie Chok, Jonathan Leong Shan Wong, Yung Xin Shin, Yeong Shian Poon, Zhou Yang, Chun Yong Chong, David Lo, Mei Kuan Lim
Abstract: Educators are increasingly concerned about the usage of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in programming education, particularly regarding the potential exploitation of imperfections in Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) Detectors for academic misconduct. In this paper, we present an empirical study where the LLM is examined for its attempts to bypass detection by AIGC Detectors. This is achieved by generating code in response to a given question using different variants. We collected a dataset comprising 5,069 samples, with each sample consisting of a textual description of a coding problem and its corresponding human-written Python solution codes. These samples were obtained from various sources, including 80 from Quescol, 3,264 from Kaggle, and 1,725 from LeetCode. From the dataset, we created 13 sets of code problem variant prompts, which were used to instruct ChatGPT to generate the outputs. Subsequently, we assessed the performance of five AIGC detectors. Our results demonstrate that existing AIGC Detectors perform poorly in distinguishing between human-written code and AI-generated code.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through atree representation
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.