aiqbench analysis
This study tests whether commits from AI coding agents can be identified after authorship markers are removed. Detectors reach a ROC AUC of up to 0.859, but at the real-world agent share the best precision is only 0.332, and performance transfers poorly across agents. Signature-free detection can help prioritize commits for review, but it isn't reliable attribution, so studies that rely on signature-based labels likely undercount agent activity.
Agent or Human? Detecting Commits by AI Coding Agents in the Absence of Authorship Signatures
arXiv:2610.36229v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents such as Claude Code, GitHub Copilot coding agent, and Cursor now commit directly to open-source repositories. Empirical studies of these agents identify their commits through authorship signatures, such as bot accounts and Co-authored-by trailers. These signatures are optional, can be removed, and are often attached to pull requests rather than to individual commits. Hence, it is unclear whether Agent commits can be told apart from Human commits once the signatures are gone. We investigate the signals and limits of signature-free detection using 7,837,946 commits from 1,226 repositories, covering five coding agents and Human commits. After signatures are masked, detectors rank Agent commits above Human commits with a ROC AUC of up to 0.859, and most of this signal comes from message verbosity and change size rather than from the code itself. On the shared sample, gpt-6-sol without fine-tuning reaches AUCs similar to XGBoost and TF-IDF. At the observed Agent share, however, the best detector on the full test set reaches a precision of only 0.332. Detection transfers poorly to held-out Claude Code and Copilot, with TF-IDF reaching an AUC of only 0.524 for Claude Code. Temporal changes also depend on the agent, e.g., Copilot AUC drops and later recovers, while more training history helps Claude Code but not Copilot. These results indicate that signature-free detection can prioritize commits for review but cannot replace recorded attribution, and that studies relying on signature-based labels should treat them as a lower bound on agent activity.
Title:Agent or Human? Detecting Commits by AI Coding Agents in the Absence of Authorship Signatures
Abstract:AI coding agents such as Claude Code, GitHub Copilot coding agent, and Cursor now commit directly to open-source repositories. Empirical studies of these agents identify their commits through authorship signatures, such as bot accounts and Co-authored-by trailers. These signatures are optional, can be removed, and are often attached to pull requests rather than to individual commits. Hence, it is unclear whether Agent commits can be told apart from Human commits once the signatures are gone. We investigate the signals and limits of signature-free detection using 7,837,946 commits from 1,226 repositories, covering five coding agents and Human commits. After signatures are masked, detectors rank Agent commits above Human commits with a ROC AUC of up to 0.859, and most of this signal comes from message verbosity and change size rather than from the code itself. On the shared sample, gpt-6-sol without fine-tuning reaches AUCs similar to XGBoost and TF-IDF. At the observed Agent share, however, the best detector on the full test set reaches a precision of only 0.332. Detection transfers poorly to held-out Claude Code and Copilot, with TF-IDF reaching an AUC of only 0.524 for Claude Code. Temporal changes also depend on the agent, e.g., Copilot AUC drops and later recovers, while more training history helps Claude Code but not Copilot. These results indicate that signature-free detection can prioritize commits for review but cannot replace recorded attribution, and that studies relying on signature-based labels should treat them as a lower bound on agent activity.
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.36229 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2610.36229v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.36229 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 357 words
Related coverage
Large Language Models Threaten Double-blind Review
arXiv · Aug 7, 2026
Not X, but When: Diagnosing a Mandarin LLM Writing Tic through Contextual Appropriateness
arXiv · Oct 16, 2026

The AI Lab Launches Post-Quantum TIP Protocol for Content Verification
The Quantum Insider · Oct 5, 2026

Security briefing: May 2026
Sysdig Blog · Jun 2, 2026