MACAA: Belief-Revision Multi-Agent Reasoning for Code Authorship Verification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.09421v3
• Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 14:14:55 GMT
• Title: MACAA: Belief-Revision Multi-Agent Reasoning for Code Authorship Verification
• Abstract summary: We propose MACAA, a belief-revision-based framework for training-free code authorship verification.<n> MACAA comprises a Coordinator and four Expert Agents analyzing layout, lexical, syntactic, and programming-pattern evidence.<n> MACAA achieves 89.15% F1 on same-language benchmarks and 80.00% on mixed cross-language pairs, outperforming the baselines overall in both same-language and cross-language evaluations.
• Score: 8.089784374872744
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Code authorship attribution (CAA) supports software forensics, plagiarism detection, and intellectual property protection. However, existing supervised CAA approaches suffer from scarce training data and closed-world assumptions: they require sufficient labeled code from fixed candidate-author sets, making training difficult in low-data cases and predictions unreliable for open-world test pairs with unseen samples, or heterogeneous code pairs. Large language models remove task-specific training, but direct prompting depends on costly expert-designed prompts, can hallucinate over complex heterogeneous code pairs, and rarely yields auditable evidence traces. We propose MACAA, a belief-revision-based multi-agent framework for training-free code authorship verification. MACAA comprises a Coordinator and four Expert Agents analyzing layout, lexical, syntactic, and programming-pattern evidence. The Coordinator gathers expert signals for expansion, discounts unreliable evidence through contraction, and resolves conflicts through revision to preserve belief consistency, replacing direct LLM judgment with auditable hypothesis refinement. MACAA achieves 89.15\% F1 on same-language benchmarks and 80.00\% on mixed cross-language pairs, outperforming the baselines overall in both same-language and cross-language evaluations.

Related papers

• AgentBeats: Agentifying Agent Assessment for Openness, Standardization, and Reproducibility [104.46861849039357]
  Agent systems are advancing quickly across domains, but their evaluation remains fragmented.<n>The root problem is the lack of an open, agent-agnostic assessment interface.<n>We advocate Agentified Agent Assessment (AAA), where evaluation is performed by judge agents and all participants interact through standardized protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T17:23:54Z)
• AsmRAG: LLM-Driven Malware Detection by Retrieving Functionally Similar Assembly Code [1.2183405753834562]
  We introduce AsmRAG, a framework performing malware analysis through Assembly-Level Retrieval-Augmented Generation.<n>The system uses a code-specialized Large Language Model (LLM) to analyze assembly functions and convert them into semantic embeddings.<n>For inference, we propose a Density-Weighted Anchor Selection mechanism that isolates the primary unit of malicious logic within a binary to extract verifiable forensic evidence and resist evasion attempts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-25T08:05:50Z)
• Mitigating Implicit Inconsistencies in Patch Porting [13.153399281876451]
  Implicit inconsistencies pose challenges for developers to resolve due to their non-local nature.<n>We propose MIP, which enables collaboration among an LLM, a compiler, and code analysis utilities.<n> Experiments on two representative scenarios, cross-fork and cross-branch patch porting, show that MIP successfully resolves more than twice as many patches as the best-performing baseline in both settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T06:33:31Z)
• An Agentic Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Scientific Code in PETSc [7.236134946837382]
  petscagent-bench is an agentic framework built on an agents-evaluating-agents paradigm.<n>It orchestrates a 14-evaluator pipeline across five scoring categories: correctness, performance, code quality, algorithmic appropriateness, and library-specific conventions.<n>We demonstrate the framework on a benchmark suite of realistic problems using the PETSc library for HPC.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T22:46:10Z)
• VIBEPASS: Can Vibe Coders Really Pass the Vibe Check? [46.85901599242161]
  We evaluate two coupled tasks: emphFault-Triggering Test Generation (FT-Test) and emphFault-targeted Program Repair (FPR)<n>We find that fault-targeted reasoning does not scale with general coding ability.<n>Test-guided repair reveals a complementary insight: when self-generated tests successfully witness a fault, the resulting repair matches or outperforms repair guided by externally provided tests, but tests that fail to witness the fault actively degrade repair below unguided baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T21:14:28Z)
• The Unlearning Mirage: A Dynamic Framework for Evaluating LLM Unlearning [54.67958855362658]
  We propose a dynamic framework that stress tests unlearning using complex structured queries.<n>Our approach first elicits knowledge from the target model (pre-unlearning) and constructs targeted probes, ranging from simple queries to multi-hop chains.<n>Our framework enables practical and scalable evaluation of unlearning methods without the need for manual construction of forget test sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T19:51:33Z)
• IMMACULATE: A Practical LLM Auditing Framework via Verifiable Computation [49.796717294455796]
  We present IMMACULATE, a practical auditing framework that detects economically motivated deviations.<n>IMMACULATE selectively audits a small fraction of requests using verifiable computation, achieving strong detection guarantees while amortizing cryptographic overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T07:21:02Z)
• CodeHacker: Automated Test Case Generation for Detecting Vulnerabilities in Competitive Programming Solutions [8.163435280190027]
  Existing benchmarks often lack coverage for subtle corner cases, allowing incorrect solutions to pass.<n>CodeHacker generates adversarial test cases that expose latent vulnerabilities in program submissions.<n>Experiments demonstrate that CodeHacker significantly improves the True Negative Rate (TNR) of existing datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T05:59:30Z)
• Do LLMs Know They Are Being Tested? Evaluation Awareness and Incentive-Sensitive Failures in GPT-OSS-20B [1.948261185683419]
  We investigate whether "evaluation scent" inflates measured performance without commensurate capability gains.<n>We run six paired A/B scenarios that hold task content and decoding fixed while varying framing.<n>We provide a reproducible A/B framework (prompt banks, validators, per-run scores, scripts) and practical guidance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T09:49:05Z)
• VulAgent: Hypothesis-Validation based Multi-Agent Vulnerability Detection [55.957275374847484]
  VulAgent is a multi-agent vulnerability detection framework based on hypothesis validation.<n>It implements a semantics-sensitive, multi-view detection pipeline, each aligned to a specific analysis perspective.<n>On average, VulAgent improves overall accuracy by 6.6%, increases the correct identification rate of vulnerable--fixed code pairs by up to 450%, and reduces the false positive rate by about 36%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T02:25:38Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)

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.