Automatic Identification of Important Clones for Refactoring and Tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Code cloning is a controversial software engineering practice due to contradictory claims regarding its impacts on software evolution and maintenance. While a number of studies identify some positive aspects of code clones, there is strong empirical evidence of some negative impacts of clones too. Focusing on the issues related to clones researchers suggest to manage code clones through detection, refactoring, and tracking. However, all clones in a software system are not suitable for refactoring or tracking. Thus, it is important to identify which clones we should consider for refactoring and which clones should be considered for tracking. In this research work we apply the concept of evolutionary coupling to identify clones that are important for refactoring or tracking. By mining software evolution history, we determine and analyze constrained association rules of clone fragments that evolved following a particular change pattern called Similarity Preserving Change Pattern and are important from the perspective of refactoring and tracking. According to our investigation with rigorous manual analysis on thousands of revisions of six diverse subject systems covering two programming languages, overall 13.20% of all clones in a software system are important candidates for refactoring, and overall 10.27% of all clones are important candidates for tracking. Our implemented system can automatically identify these important candidates and thus, can help us in better maintenance of code clones in terms of refactoring and tracking.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".