As mental health (MH) disorders become increasingly prevalent, their multifaceted symptoms and comorbidities with other conditions introduce complexity to diagnosis, posing a risk of underdiagnosis. While machine learning (ML) has been explored to mitigate these challenges, we hypothesized that multiple data modalities support more comprehensive detection and that non-intrusive collection approaches better capture natural behaviors. To understand the current trends, we systematically reviewed 184 studies to assess feature extraction, feature fusion, and ML methodologies applied to detect MH disorders from passively sensed multimodal data, including audio and video recordings, social media, smartphones, and wearable devices. Our findings revealed varying correlations of modality-specific features in individualized contexts, potentially influenced by demographics and personalities. We also observed the growing adoption of neural network architectures for model-level fusion and as ML algorithms, which have demonstrated promising efficacy in handling high-dimensional features while modeling within and cross-modality relationships. This work provides future researchers with a clear taxonomy of methodological approaches to multimodal detection of MH disorders to inspire future methodological advancements. The comprehensive analysis also guides and supports future researchers in making informed decisions to select an optimal data source that aligns with specific use cases based on the MH disorder of interest.

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have been deployed to tackle various software engineering (SE) tasks like code generation, significantly advancing the automation of SE tasks. However, assessing the quality of these LLM-generated code and text remains challenging. The commonly used Pass@k metric necessitates extensive unit tests and configured environments, demands a high labor cost, and is not suitable for evaluating LLM-generated text. Conventional metrics like BLEU, which measure only lexical rather than semantic similarity, have also come under scrutiny. In response, a new trend has emerged to employ LLMs for automated evaluation, known as LLM-as-a-judge. These LLM-as-a-judge methods are claimed to better mimic human assessment than conventional metrics without relying on high-quality reference answers. Nevertheless, their exact human alignment in SE tasks remains unexplored. In this paper, we empirically explore LLM-as-a-judge methods for evaluating SE tasks, focusing on their alignment with human judgments. We select seven LLM-as-a-judge methods that utilize general-purpose LLMs, alongside two LLMs specifically fine-tuned for evaluation. After generating and manually scoring LLM responses on three recent SE datasets of code translation, code generation, and code summarization, we then prompt these methods to evaluate each response. Finally, we compare the scores generated by these methods with human evaluation. The results indicate that output-based methods reach the highest Pearson correlation of 81.32 and 68.51 with human scores in code translation and generation, achieving near-human evaluation, noticeably outperforming ChrF++, one of the best conventional metrics, at 34.23 and 64.92. Such output-based methods prompt LLMs to output judgments directly, and exhibit more balanced score distributions that resemble human score patterns. Finally, we provide insights and implications, concluding that current state-of-the-art LLM-as-a-judge methods can potentially replace human evaluations in certain SE tasks.

Educators are increasingly concerned about the usage of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in programming education, particularly regarding the potential exploitation of imperfections in Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) Detectors for academic misconduct. In this paper, we present an empirical study where the LLM is examined for its attempts to bypass detection by AIGC Detectors. This is achieved by generating code in response to a given question using different variants. We collected a dataset comprising 5,069 samples, with each sample consisting of a textual description of a coding problem and its corresponding human-written Python solution codes. These samples were obtained from various sources, including 80 from Quescol, 3,264 from Kaggle, and 1,725 from Leet-Code. From the dataset, we created 13 sets of code problem variant prompts, which were used to instruct ChatGPT to generate the outputs. Subsequently, we assessed the performance of five AIGC detectors. Our results demonstrate that existing AIGC Detectors perform poorly in distinguishing between human-written code and AI-generated code.