analiza aiqbench
This empirical study evaluates the efficacy of training data detection (TDD) methods specifically for code large language models, addressing the critical need to identify proprietary snippets in generated outputs. By introducing CodeSnitch and testing against robust mutation strategies, the research highlights significant gaps between natural language detection performance and the unique structural challenges of source code. These findings are essential for developers seeking to ensure compliance and protect intellectual property as CodeLLMs become integral to software engineering workflows.
Are AI Coders Snitches? An Empirical Study of Pretraining Data Detection on Code Large Language Models
arXiv:2507.17389v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent advances in code large language models (CodeLLMs) have made them indispensable tools in modern software engineering. However, these models occasionally produce outputs that contain proprietary or sensitive code snippets, raising concerns about potential non-compliant use of training data, and posing risks to privacy and intellectual property. To ensure responsible and compliant deployment of CodeLLMs, training data detection (TDD) has become a critical task. While recent TDD methods have shown promise in natural language settings, their effectiveness on code data remains largely underexplored. This gap is particularly important given code's structured syntax and distinct similarity criteria compared to natural language. To address this, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study of seven state-of-the-art TDD methods on source code data, evaluating their performance across eight CodeLLMs. To support this evaluation, we introduce CodeSnitch, a function-level benchmark dataset comprising 9,000 code samples in three programming languages, each explicitly labeled as either included or excluded from CodeLLM training. Beyond evaluation on the original CodeSnitch, we design targeted mutation strategies to test the robustness of TDD methods under three distinct settings. These mutation strategies are grounded in the well-established Type-1 to Type-4 code clone detection taxonomy. Our study provides a systematic assessment of current TDD techniques for code and offers insights to guide the development of more effective and robust detection methods in the future.
Title:Are AI Coders Snitches? An Empirical Study of Pretraining Data Detection on Code Large Language Models
Abstract:Recent advances in code large language models (CodeLLMs) have made them indispensable tools in modern software engineering. However, these models occasionally produce outputs that contain proprietary or sensitive code snippets, raising concerns about potential non-compliant use of training data, and posing risks to privacy and intellectual property. To ensure responsible and compliant deployment of CodeLLMs, training data detection (TDD) has become a critical task. While recent TDD methods have shown promise in natural language settings, their effectiveness on code data remains largely underexplored. This gap is particularly important given code's structured syntax and distinct similarity criteria compared to natural language. To address this, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study of seven state-of-the-art TDD methods on source code data, evaluating their performance across eight CodeLLMs. To support this evaluation, we introduce CodeSnitch, a function-level benchmark dataset comprising 9,000 code samples in three programming languages, each explicitly labeled as either included or excluded from CodeLLM training. Beyond evaluation on the original CodeSnitch, we design targeted mutation strategies to test the robustness of TDD methods under three distinct settings. These mutation strategies are grounded in the well-established Type-1 to Type-4 code clone detection taxonomy. Our study provides a systematic assessment of current TDD techniques for code and offers insights to guide the development of more effective and robust detection methods in the future.
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2507.17389 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2507.17389v2 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.17389 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 331 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · 5 oct. 2026

PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · 27 iul. 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026

[AINews] Here are 6 Clones of Jev in 2 days
Latent Space · 19 sept. 2026