Threshold-free code clone detection for a large-scale heterogeneous Java repository
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Code clones are unavoidable entities in software ecosystems. A variety of clone-detection algorithms are available for finding code clones. For Type-3 clone detection at method granularity (i.e., similar methods with changes in statements), dissimilarity threshold is one of the possible configuration parameters. Existing approaches use a single threshold to detect Type-3 clones across a repository. However, our study shows that to detect Type-3 clones at method granularity on a large-scale heterogeneous repository, multiple thresholds are often required. We find that the performance of clone detection improves if selecting different thresholds for various groups of clones in a heterogeneous repository (i.e., various applications). In this paper, we propose a threshold-free approach to detect Type-3 clones at method granularity across a large number of applications. Our approach uses an unsupervised learning algorithm, i.e., k-means, to determine true and false clones. We use a clone benchmark with 330,840 tagged clones from 24,824 open source Java projects for our study. We observe that our approach improves the performance significantly by 12% in terms of F-measure. Furthermore, our threshold-free approach eliminates the concern of practitioners about possible misconfiguration of Type-3 clone detection tools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".