Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study evaluates the effectiveness of static and process evidence in determining code authorship within educational programming contexts, contrasting it with high-signal programming contests. The findings reveal that while traditional code similarity methods yield low attribution performance in educational settings, incorporating process features significantly enhances identification accuracy. Specifically, the mean attribution score improved from 0.094 to 0.233, indicating that process patterns can provide valuable insights when final code alone is insufficient for authorship verification.
Process features can triple the authorship attribution accuracy in educational programming contexts, revealing the limitations of relying solely on final code submissions.
In programming courses, instructors may need to interpret whether a submission is consistent with a student's prior programming profile, especially when code similarity alone is inconclusive. Existing source-code authorship methods are often evaluated on programming-contest or open-source datasets, where reusable templates and local code patterns can produce strong author-related signal. Educational repositories present a different setting. Students solve shared assignments while their programming practices are still developing. This study uses task-aware evaluation to contrast these production contexts and tests whether repository-visible process features add information beyond final code in six matched educational comparisons. Contest data provide a high-signal contrast, with a Kick Start mean top-1 of 0.938. Educational datasets produce substantially lower attribution performance. Adding process features raises the educational mean from 0.094 to 0.233 and mean pairwise verification ROC-AUC from 0.556 to 0.752. The comparisons show that measured signal depends on production context and that process patterns can complement weak final-code signal in educational repositories. Such models are therefore appropriate only as instructor-mediated decision support, not as independent proof of authorship.
