Can Code Evaluation Metrics Detect Code Plagiarism?

Large language models (LLMs) pose challenges to academic integrity and peer review. Yet generative plagiarism detection remains an underexplored and largely unresolved challenge. Prior work on LLM-generated-text detection targets AI involvement, which may be permissible, rather than source reuse, while similarity-based methods struggle after extensive rewriting and multi-source synthesis. Motivated by the description-length view of probabilistic prediction, in which relevant side information can reduce a target sequence's code length, we introduce Source-Conditioned Description-Length Gain (SCDG), a directional, training-free framework that contrasts a frozen language model's description length of a suspicious document $P$ with and without a candidate source $S$. This contrast yields token-level log-likelihood gains that measure the incremental predictive evidence supplied by $S$. We evaluate SCDG on the PAN at CLEF benchmarks for generative plagiarism. On a PAN 2025-derived pairwise benchmark, SCDG achieves 0.92 Precision, 0.97 Recall, and 0.94 F1, outperforming all baselines; on PAN 2026's multi-source retrieval task, it reaches 0.83 nDCG@10 and 0.96 Recall@100, surpassing all baselines. On a same-topic, same-event Multi-News test, the calibrated gain-distribution SCDG classifier predicts source reuse for only $0.125\%$ of pairs, supporting robustness to topical overlap under this evaluation protocol. These results establish SCDG as a unified and token-decomposable signal for source-specific content reuse under extensive transformation.

Large language models (LLMs) for code completion and generation are increasingly used in software development, yet they may reproduce training examples verbatim and without authorship attribution, raising legal and ethical concerns around plagiarism and license compliance. Classical fingerprint-based plagiarism detectors based on fingerprinting, such as Winnowing, remain highly effective, yet the inspection requires comparing fragments of code to the entire training set, and their linear-time search makes them impractical for the billion-scale corpora used to train modern code LLMs. To bridge this gap, we introduce SOURCETRACKER, a 300M-parameter encoder tailored for code retrieval, together with a hybrid two-stage provenance-tracking pipeline HYBRIDSOURCETRACKER (HST). HST first narrows down a small set of candidate snippets via vector search, then re-ranks those candidates using Winnowing on exact fingerprints. We train and evaluate our system on a 10M-snippet subset of the THESTACKV2 dataset, with both verbatim and adapted snippets that emulate realistic identifier renaming. On an in vitro 100k-snippet search space with adapted queries, our hybrid approach reaches a mean reciprocal rank on par with Winnowing for 30-token fragments. Then, starting from windows >= 60 tokens, it consistently over-performs by up to 5.4% while preserving logarithmic-time query complexity. In a complementary evaluation using an LLM-based judge, we find that many retrieved snippets not labeled as ground truth are still highly similar to the expected sources, particularly with longer context windows, and thus remain useful for end users. Overall, our results demonstrate that integrating vector search with fingerprinting enables scalable, high-precision provenance tracking for code produced by LLMs.

Software engineering has long inferred where a system's knowledge resides from who authored its code. The truck factor, the Degree-of-Authorship metric, and the degree-of-knowledge model all rest on one inference -- that authoring a region of code is evidence of understanding it -- and for most of software's history it was a workable proxy, because code entered a repository only when a human wrote it, which forced at least transient understanding. This paper argues that AI code generation severs that inference at its root, and that the consequence is not the degradation of the authorship-based metrics but their invalidation as a class. When an agent generates a module and a human merges it, the version-control record still attributes authorship, but the attribution no longer licenses any conclusion about comprehension: the same footprint is now compatible with full, partial, or no understanding. The metric still returns a number; the number measures a substrate that has come uncoupled from the quantity it was used to estimate. The collapse is corroborated by the field's own measurement failures, and the methodological corollary is load-bearing: the instrument the comprehension-debt era needs cannot be built by refining the knowledge-concentration metrics, because no function of an authorship footprint recovers an inference the footprint no longer supports. The replacement must be grounded in evidence of comprehension rather than authorship. I state a falsifiable prediction that discriminates the two -- that systems with a healthy authorship-derived truck factor but low comprehension-measured retention will suffer incident-resolution failures the authorship metric does not predict -- and argue that building the comprehension-grounded instrument at the scale of a system and a team is the field's open measurement problem, left open here.