Empirical study reveals varying detectability of adversarial perturbations in AI-generated Python code, indicating that semantic modifications completely evade detection.
This study investigates adversarial perturbation detection in AI-generated code. We systematically test five perturbation strategies (comment planting, dead code insertion, variable shadowing, import aliasing, boundary inversion) on 550 AI-generated Python samples (100 clean, 450 perturbed). We evaluate three detection approaches: AST features with XGBoost, mean-pooled CodeBERT with logistic regression, and token-level CodeBERT. Key findings:- Three-tier detectability hierarchy: structural perturbations are trivially detected (100% recall), feature-specific perturbations (import aliasing) require dedicated features (7-17% recall), and semantic perturbations (boundary inversion) are completely invisible (0% recall).- McNemar's test confirms AST features significantly outperform embeddings (p=0.0201).- Cross-strategy generalization reveals asymmetric transferability. Code and dataset: https://github.com/amanmukati09/adversarial-code-perturbations
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aman Mukati (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: