Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.12708

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

Cristina Improta·Pietro Liguori·Domenico Cotroneo
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Cristina Improta, Pietro Liguori, Domenico Cotroneo. 2026-09-21. What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.12708

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

XScientist: A Git-Like Research Protocol for Long-Running Autonomous Scientific Discovery

Autonomous research systems can generate plausible papers while losing the decisions, failed branches, and evidence needed to inspect or continue the work. We present XScientist, a local-first, git-like protocol that treats research state, rather than a manuscript, as the unit of continuation. Hypotheses, experiment attempts, observations, claims, reviews, and handoffs are represented as typed, content-addressed objects in an exploration graph. Immutable checkpoints, explicit negative outcomes, claim-evidence closure, replay boundaries, and authority-aware gates make each transition inspectable without treating a passing integrity check as scientific truth. The protocol exports a portable Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA) that another agent or human can inspect, fork, verify, and extend. A reference implementation integrates planning, execution, review, repair, and supervised long-running operation while preserving provenance across these stages. We evaluate the protocol with controlled artifact-integrity workloads and matched external task pilots, keeping native task performance separate from evidence and audit claims. The result is an interoperability and accountability layer for long-running autonomous science, with explicit boundaries where human judgment and independent evaluation remain necessary.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

AutoSQL: Extracting SQL Templates from Imperative ORM Code in Large-Scale Repositories

Suboptimal SQL queries can significantly degrade the performance of cloud systems, motivating the extraction and auditing of SQL statements before deployment. However, Go ORM frameworks construct SQL imperatively through scattered method-call sequences, making it difficult to statically recover the resulting SQL templates. We present AutoSQL, a system that reconstructs SQL templates from Go ORM code. AutoSQL constructs a Code Index, a directed graph that captures structural dependencies between functions, types, and global variables as navigable edges. It then traces upstream call chains from ORM invocation sites to identify database-interacting functions as entry points. For each entry point, an LLM agent traverses the Code Index to collect code slices that influence SQL generation, switching to pattern-based search when the graph cannot resolve a retrieval goal. We call this strategy Hybrid Context Retrieval. Once sufficient context is collected, the agent synthesizes SQL templates. Evaluation on a benchmark of 579 test-covered entry points and 1,186 runtime-traced SQL statements from five large-scale Go repositories shows that AutoSQL achieves 68.04% to 72.18% recall, exceeding the static reachability baseline by 11.80% to 15.94% and outperforming existing methods by 8.52% to 21.50%.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

The Vocabulary of Flaky Tests in Swift

Flaky tests produce non-deterministic outcomes without code change, eroding CI confidence and delaying deliveries. While vocabulary-based machine learning prediction has proven effective for Java and JavaScript, no study has evaluated it for Swift, a language whose testing style is dominated by UI and asynchronous code. We collect 91 flaky and 22,349 stable tests from 15 open-source Swift projects via re-execution and commit-history mining, then train five classifiers (Random Forest, Decision Tree, Naive Bayes, SVM, KNN) on TF-IDF unigram+bigram features under stratified 5-fold cross-validation. Random Forest achieves the best performance (Precision = 0.92, F1 = 0.86, AUC = 0.95) and substantially outperforms trivial baselines, among them a vocabulary-threshold rule applied to the most informative tokens, confirming a genuine discriminative signal (MCC = 0.75 vs. 0.08 for the best baseline). Information-gain analysis reveals two complementary signal types. Flakiness markers appear predominantly in unstable tests and comprise concurrency primitives (async, await), expectation-based synchronisation (expectation, fulfill), error propagation (throws), and explicit timing dependence (timeout, wait, now). Stability markers, chiefly the assertion vocabulary of plainly synchronous tests (xctassertequal), count as evidence against flakiness. Error analysis shows that the model fails when flakiness is hidden in shared infrastructure outside the test body or when async constructs are used in a deterministic context, exposing the intrinsic limit of lexical prediction. These results extend vocabulary-based flakiness detection to the Swift ecosystem and characterise both its effectiveness and its boundaries.

cs.SE↗