Context: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to generate program code. Much research has been reported on the functional correctness of generated code, but there is far less on code quality. Objectives: In this study, we propose a scenario-based method of evaluating the quality of LLM-generated code to identify the weakest scenarios in which the quality of LLM generated code should be improved. Methods: The method measures code smells, an important indicator of code quality, and compares them with a baseline formed from reference solutions of professionally written code. The test dataset is divided into various subsets according to the topics of the code and complexity of the coding tasks to represent different scenarios of using LLMs for code generation. We will also present an automated test system for this purpose and report experiments with the Java programs generated in response to prompts given to four state-of-the-art LLMs: Gemini Pro, ChatGPT, Codex, and Falcon. Results: We find that LLM-generated code has a higher incidence of code smells compared to reference solutions. Falcon performed the least badly, with a smell increase of 42.28%, followed by Gemini Pro (62.07%), ChatGPT (65.05%) and finally Codex (84.97%). The average smell increase across all LLMs was 63.34%, comprising 73.35% for implementation smells and 21.42% for design smells. We also found that the increase in code smells is greater for more complex coding tasks and for more advanced topics, such as those involving object-orientated concepts. Conclusion: In terms of code smells, LLM's performances on various coding task complexities and topics are highly correlated to the quality of human written code in the corresponding scenarios. However, the quality of LLM generated code is noticeably poorer than human written code.

In this work, we compile $\textbf{$\texttt{DroidCollection}$}$, the most extensive open data suite for training and evaluating machine-generated code detectors, comprising over a million code samples, seven programming languages, outputs from 43 coding models, and over three real-world coding domains. Alongside fully AI-generated samples, our collection includes human-AI co-authored code, as well as adversarial samples explicitly crafted to evade detection. Subsequently, we develop $\textbf{$\texttt{DroidDetect}$}$, a suite of encoder-only detectors trained using a multi-task objective over $\texttt{DroidCollection}$. Our experiments show that existing detectors' performance fails to generalise to diverse coding domains and programming languages outside of their narrow training data. Additionally, we demonstrate that while most detectors are easily compromised by humanising the output distributions using superficial prompting and alignment approaches, this problem can be easily amended by training on a small amount of adversarial data. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of metric learning and uncertainty-based resampling as means to enhance detector training on possibly noisy distributions.

As large language models (LLMs) rapidly advance, their role in code generation has expanded significantly. While this offers streamlined development, it also creates concerns in areas like education and job interviews. Consequently, developing robust systems to detect AI-generated code is imperative to maintain academic integrity and ensure fairness in hiring processes. In this study, we introduce MultiAIGCD, a dataset for AI-generated code detection for Python, Java, and Go. From the CodeNet dataset's problem definitions and human-authored codes, we generate several code samples in Java, Python, and Go with six different LLMs and three different prompts. This generation process covered three key usage scenarios: (i) generating code from problem descriptions, (ii) fixing runtime errors in human-written code, and (iii) correcting incorrect outputs. Overall, MultiAIGCD consists of 121,271 AI-generated and 32,148 human-written code snippets. We also benchmark three state-of-the-art AI-generated code detection models and assess their performance in various test scenarios such as cross-model and cross-language. We share our dataset and codes to support research in this field.

However, current approaches face a critical challenge: they can not simultaneously optimize for functional correctness and hardware quality (Power, Performance, Area - PPA). Methods based on supervised fine-tuning often generate functionally correct but PPA-suboptimal code, lacking mechanisms to learn optimization principles. In contrast, post-processing techniques that attempt to improve PPA metrics after generation are often inefficient because they operate externally without updating the LLM's parameters, thus failing to enhance the model's intrinsic design capabilities. T o bridge this gap, we introduce ChipSeek-R1, a hierarchical reward-driven reinforcement learning framework to train LLMs to generate RTL code that achieves both functional correctness and optimized PPA metrics. ChipSeek-R1 employs a hierarchical reward system, which incorporates direct feedback on syntax, functional correctness (from simulators) and PPA metrics (from synthesis tools) during reinforcement learning. This enables the model to learn complex hardware design trade-offs via trial-and-error, generating RTL code that is both functionally correct and PPA-optimized. Evaluating ChipSeek-R1 on standard benchmarks (V erilogEval, RTLLM), we achieve state-of-the-art results in functional correctness. Notably, on the RTLLM benchmark, ChipSeek-R1 generated 27 RTL designs surpassing the PPA metrics of the original human-written code. Our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of integrating toolchain feedback into LLM training and highlight the potential for reinforcement learning to enable automated generation of human-surpassing RTL code.

Coding remains one of the most fundamental modes of interaction between humans and machines. With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), code generation capabilities have begun to significantly reshape programming practices. This development prompts a central question: Have LLMs transformed code style, and how can such transformation be characterized? In this paper, we present a pioneering study that investigates the impact of LLMs on code style, with a focus on naming conventions, complexity, maintainability, and similarity. By analyzing code from over 19,000 GitHub repositories linked to arXiv papers published between 2020 and 2025, we identify measurable trends in the evolution of coding style that align with characteristics of LLM-generated code. For instance, the proportion of snake\_case variable names in Python code increased from 47% in Q1 2023 to 51% in Q1 2025. Furthermore, we investigate how LLMs approach algorithmic problems by examining their reasoning processes. Given the diversity of LLMs and usage scenarios, among other factors, it is difficult or even impossible to precisely estimate the proportion of code generated or assisted by LLMs. Our experimental results provide the first large-scale empirical evidence that LLMs affect real-world programming style.

Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized code generation, automating programming with remarkable efficiency. However, these advancements challenge programming skills, ethics, and assessment integrity, making the detection of LLM-generated code essential for maintaining accountability and standards. While, there has been some research on this problem, it generally lacks domain coverage and robustness, and only covers a small number of programming languages. To this end, we propose a framework capable of distinguishing between human- and LLM-written code across multiple programming languages, code generators, and domains. We use a large-scale dataset from renowned platforms and LLM-based code generators, alongside applying rigorous data quality checks, feature engineering, and comparative analysis using evaluation of traditional machine learning models, pre-trained language models (PLMs), and LLMs for code detection. We perform an evaluation on out-of-domain scenarios, such as detecting the authorship and hybrid authorship of generated code and generalizing to unseen models, domains, and programming languages. Moreover, our extensive experiments show that our framework effectively distinguishes human- from LLM-written code and sets a new benchmark for this task.

Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) for code generation has raised serious concerns about intellectual property protection. Malicious users can exploit LLMs to produce paraphrased versions of proprietary code that closely resemble the original. While the potential for LLM-assisted code paraphrasing continues to grow, research on detecting it remains limited, underscoring an urgent need for detection system. We respond to this need by proposing two tasks. The first task is to detect whether code generated by an LLM is a paraphrased version of original human-written code. The second task is to identify which LLM is used to paraphrase the original code. For these tasks, we construct a dataset LPcode consisting of pairs of human-written code and LLM-paraphrased code using various LLMs. We statistically confirm significant differences in the coding styles of human-written and LLM-paraphrased code, particularly in terms of naming consistency, code structure, and readability. Based on these findings, we develop LPcodedec, a detection method that identifies paraphrase relationships between human-written and LLM-generated code, and discover which LLM is used for the paraphrasing. LPcodedec outperforms the best baselines in two tasks, improving F1 scores by 2.64% and 15.17% while achieving speedups of 1,343x and 213x, respectively. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/Shinwoo-Park/detecting_llm_paraphrased_code_via_coding_style_features.

Programmers spend a significant amount of time reading code during the software development process. This trend is amplified by the emergence of large language models (LLMs) that automatically generate code. However, little is known about the readability of the LLM-generated code and whether it is still important from practitioners' perspectives in this new era. In this paper, we conduct a survey to explore the practitioners' perspectives on code readability in the age of LLMs and investigate the readability of our LLM-based software development agents framework, HULA, by comparing its generated code with human-written code in real-world scenarios. Overall, the findings underscore that (1) readability remains a critical aspect of software development; (2) the readability of our LLM-generated code is comparable to human-written code, fostering the establishment of appropriate trust and driving the broad adoption of our LLM-powered software development platform.

With the rapid advancement of LLM models, they have become widely useful in various fields. While these AI systems can be used for code generation, significantly simplifying and accelerating the tasks of developers, their use for students to do assignments has raised ethical questions in the field of education. In this context, determining the author of a particular code becomes important. In this study, we introduce AIGCodeSet, a dataset for AI-generated code detection tasks, specifically for the Python programming language. We obtain the problem descriptions and human-written codes from the CodeNet dataset. Using the problem descriptions, we generate AI-written codes with CodeLlama 34B, Codestral 22B, and Gemini 1.5 Flash models in three approaches: i) generating code from the problem description alone, ii) generating code using the description along with human-written source code containing runtime errors, and iii) generating code using the problem description and human-written code that resulted in wrong answers. Lastly, we conducted a post-processing step to eliminate LLM output irrelevant to code snippets. Overall, AIGCodeSet consists of 2,828 AI-generated and 4,755 human-written code snippets. We share our code with the research community to support studies on this important topic and provide performance results for baseline AI-generated code detection methods.

Generating code via a LLM (rather than writing code from scratch), has exploded in popularity. However, the security implications of LLM-generated code are still unknown. We performed a study that compared the security and quality of human-written code with that of LLM-generated code, for a wide range of programming tasks, including data structures, algorithms, cryptographic routines, and LeetCode questions. To assess code security we used unit testing, fuzzing, and static analysis. For code quality, we focused on complexity and size. We found that LLM can generate incorrect code that fails to implement the required functionality, especially for more complicated tasks; such errors can be subtle. For example, for the cryptographic algorithm SHA1, LLM generated an incorrect implementation that nevertheless compiles. In cases where its functionality was correct, we found that LLM-generated code is less secure, primarily due to the lack of defensive programming constructs, which invites a host of security issues such as buffer overflows or integer overflows. Fuzzing has revealed that LLM-generated code is more prone to hangs and crashes than human-written code. Quality-wise, we found that LLM generates bare-bones code that lacks defensive programming constructs, and is typically more complex (per line of code) compared to human-written code. Next, we constructed a feedback loop that asked the LLM to re-generate the code and eliminate the found issues (e.g., malloc overflow, array index out of bounds, null dereferences). We found that the LLM fails to eliminate such issues consistently: while succeeding in some cases, we found instances where the re-generated, supposedly more secure code, contains new issues; we also found that upon prompting, LLM can introduce issues in files that were issues-free before prompting.