SOGPTSpotter: Detecting ChatGPT-Generated Answers on Stack Overflow

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.04185v1
• Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 03:47:36 GMT
• Title: SOGPTSpotter: Detecting ChatGPT-Generated Answers on Stack Overflow
• Authors: Suyu Ma, Chunyang Chen, Hourieh Khalajzadeh, John Grundy,
• Abstract summary: Stack Overflow is a popular Q&A platform where users ask technical questions and receive answers from a community of experts.<n>There has been a significant increase in the number of answers generated by ChatGPT, which can lead to incorrect and unreliable information being posted on the site.<n>We introduce a novel approach, SOGPTSpotter, that employs Siamese Neural Networks, leveraging the BigBird model and the Triplet loss to detect ChatGPT-generated answers on Stack Overflow.
• Score: 11.522654103273242
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Stack Overflow is a popular Q&A platform where users ask technical questions and receive answers from a community of experts. Recently, there has been a significant increase in the number of answers generated by ChatGPT, which can lead to incorrect and unreliable information being posted on the site. While Stack Overflow has banned such AI-generated content, detecting whether a post is ChatGPT-generated remains a challenging task. We introduce a novel approach, SOGPTSpotter, that employs Siamese Neural Networks, leveraging the BigBird model and the Triplet loss, to detect ChatGPT-generated answers on Stack Overflow. We use triplets of human answers, reference answers, and ChatGPT answers. Our empirical evaluation reveals that our approach outperforms well-established baselines like GPTZero, DetectGPT, GLTR, BERT, RoBERTa, and GPT-2 in identifying ChatGPT-synthesized Stack Overflow responses. We also conducted an ablation study to show the effectiveness of our model. Additional experiments were conducted to assess various factors, including the impact of text length, the model's robustness against adversarial attacks, and its generalization capabilities across different domains and large language models. We also conducted a real-world case study on Stack Overflow. Using our tool's recommendations, Stack Overflow moderators were able to identify and take down ChatGPT-suspected generated answers, demonstrating the practical applicability and effectiveness of our approach.

Related papers

• Stack Overflow Is Not Dead Yet: Crowd Answers Still Matter [0.9990687944474739]
  ChatGPT was introduced on Stack Overflow in November 2022.<n>This paper estimates the effect of ChatGPT on the length and difficulty of user questions and code examples.<n>Our results suggest that ChatGPT has effectively raised the bar for questions on Stack Overflow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-07T00:43:38Z)
• An exploratory analysis of Community-based Question-Answering Platforms and GPT-3-driven Generative AI: Is it the end of online community-based learning? [0.6749750044497732]
  ChatGPT offers software engineers an interactive alternative to community question-answering platforms like Stack Overflow. We analyze 2564 Python and JavaScript questions from StackOverflow that were asked between January 2022 and December 2022. Our analysis indicates that ChatGPT's responses are 66% shorter and share 35% more words with the questions, showing a 25% increase in positive sentiment compared to human responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-26T02:17:30Z)
• Exploring ChatGPT's Capabilities on Vulnerability Management [56.4403395100589]
  We explore ChatGPT's capabilities on 6 tasks involving the complete vulnerability management process with a large-scale dataset containing 70,346 samples. One notable example is ChatGPT's proficiency in tasks like generating titles for software bug reports. Our findings reveal the difficulties encountered by ChatGPT and shed light on promising future directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-11T11:01:13Z)
• Primacy Effect of ChatGPT [69.49920102917598]
  We study the primacy effect of ChatGPT: the tendency of selecting the labels at earlier positions as the answer. We hope that our experiments and analyses provide additional insights into building more reliable ChatGPT-based solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T00:37:28Z)
• Is Stack Overflow Obsolete? An Empirical Study of the Characteristics of ChatGPT Answers to Stack Overflow Questions [7.065853028825656]
  We conducted the first in-depth analysis of ChatGPT answers to programming questions on Stack Overflow. We examined the correctness, consistency, comprehensiveness, and conciseness of ChatGPT answers. Our analysis shows that 52% of ChatGPT answers contain incorrect information and 77% are verbose.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-04T13:23:20Z)
• Are We Ready to Embrace Generative AI for Software Q&A? [25.749110480727765]
  Stack Overflow, the world's largest software Q&A (SQA) website, is facing a significant traffic drop due to the emergence of generative AI techniques. ChatGPT is banned by Stack Overflow after only 6 days from its release. To verify this, we conduct a comparative evaluation of human-written and ChatGPT-generated answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-19T05:54:43Z)
• Evaluating Privacy Questions From Stack Overflow: Can ChatGPT Compete? [1.231476564107544]
  ChatGPT has been used as an alternative to generate code or produce responses to developers' questions. Our results show that most privacy-related questions are related to choice/consent, aggregation, and identification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-19T21:33:04Z)
• ChatLog: Carefully Evaluating the Evolution of ChatGPT Across Time [54.18651663847874]
  ChatGPT has achieved great success and can be considered to have acquired an infrastructural status. Existing benchmarks encounter two challenges: (1) Disregard for periodical evaluation and (2) Lack of fine-grained features. We construct ChatLog, an ever-updating dataset with large-scale records of diverse long-form ChatGPT responses for 21 NLP benchmarks from March, 2023 to now.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T11:33:48Z)
• To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question! [78.407861566006]
  This study provides a comprehensive and contemporary assessment of the most recent techniques in ChatGPT detection. We have curated a benchmark dataset consisting of prompts from ChatGPT and humans, including diverse questions from medical, open Q&A, and finance domains. Our evaluation results demonstrate that none of the existing methods can effectively detect ChatGPT-generated content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T03:04:28Z)
• Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver? [113.22611481694825]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to perform a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks zero-shot. Recently, the debut of ChatGPT has drawn a great deal of attention from the natural language processing (NLP) community. It is not yet known whether ChatGPT can serve as a generalist model that can perform many NLP tasks zero-shot.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T09:44:51Z)
• A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failures [47.64219291655723]
  ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, has been trained using massive amounts of data and simulates human conversation. It has garnered significant attention due to its ability to effectively answer a broad range of human inquiries. However, a comprehensive analysis of ChatGPT's failures is lacking, which is the focus of this study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T04:21:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.