Completely useless research.
Here's some bashing, because this really deserves it. Something like this could only be dreamt of and started by those who doesn't understand programming.
1) 64% chance to deanonymise a small sample set of hand-picked 100 programmers presumably with wildly distinctive ways of programming is utterly useless. How many programmers are there in the world, I very much expect the accuracy to drop off a cliff past a certain point.
2) Programmer's coding style evolve, they evolve as they get better at it, they evolve when hardware changes, they evolve depending how much alcohol intake they had.
3) Right now their accuracy is as it is, but I presume this changes drastically depending on what compiler they use. As compilers get even better at optimising, their accuracy will drop.
4) Sure, there may still be "traits" like one programmer prefers one data structure or control structure more than another, but let's not forget how many programmers or libraries one can use. It'd be completely pointless to predict a binary compiled that's 80% from opensource libraries and I expect the accuracy will drop even further.
5) None of this helps authorities to catch or identify those reponsible. The sophisticated ones, will learn to mimick, like how they're just as likely now to write "chinese/russian/english code comments" leftovers or originate from a "North Korean IP". The sly ones _NEVER_ makes it obvious it's them.
Common sense and logic will be able to tell you all this without going into however much resources has been poured into researching this.
Half or much of the stuff about "cutting-edge" computer security threats are snake oil. Served either to gain more funding from fear or political purposes to pass liberty eroding legislations.