HybridCodeAuthorship: A Benchmark Dataset for Line-Level Code Authorship Detection

This paper describes the system submitted by team \textbf{Archaeology} to SemEval-2026 Task~13 on AI-generated code detection. The shared task consists of three subtasks; we participate in Subtask-A (binary classification: human-written vs.\ AI-generated code) and Subtask-B (11-class attribution of the generating model). Starting from a TF-IDF and Logistic Regression baseline, we fine-tune four pre-trained code models (CodeBERT, GraphCodeBERT, UniXcoder, and CodeT5+) with separate strategies for each subtask. For Subtask-A, we use leave-one-language-out cross-validation, code augmentation, chunked inference with trimmed-mean aggregation, and threshold calibration on a difficult dataset. For Subtask-B, we use sandwich token packing, class-balanced loss, and multi-seed ensembling with test-time augmentation. Our best submissions obtain macro-F1 scores of 0.737 on Subtask-A (6th/81 teams) and 0.422 on Subtask-B (7th/34 teams).

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

The rapid proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) in software development has made distinguishing AI-generated code from human-written code a critical challenge with implications for academic integrity, code quality assurance, and software security. We present LLMSniffer, a detection framework that fine-tunes GraphCodeBERT using a two-stage supervised contrastive learning pipeline augmented with comment removal preprocessing and an MLP classifier. Evaluated on two benchmark datasets - GPTSniffer and Whodunit - LLMSniffer achieves substantial improvements over prior baselines: accuracy increases from 70% to 78% on GPTSniffer (F1: 68% to 78%) and from 91% to 94.65% on Whodunit (F1: 91% to 94.64%). t-SNE visualizations confirm that contrastive fine-tuning yields well-separated, compact embeddings. We release our model checkpoints, datasets, codes and a live interactive demo to facilitate further research.