Evaluating Code Clone Genealogies at Release Level: An Empirical Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Code clone genealogies show how clone groups evolve with the evolution of the associated software system, and thus could provide important insights on the maintenance implications of clones. In this paper, we provide an in-depth empirical study for evaluating clone genealogies in evolving open source systems at the release level. We develop a clone genealogy extractor, examine 17 open source C, Java, C++ and C# systems of diverse varieties and study different dimensions of how clone groups evolve with the evolution of the software systems. Our study shows that majority of the clone groups of the clone genealogies either propagate without any syntactic changes or change consistently in the subsequent releases, and that many of the genealogies remain alive during the evolution. These findings seem to be consistent with the findings of a previous study that clones may not be as detrimental in software maintenance as believed to be (at least by many of us), and that instead of aggressively refactoring clones, we should possibly focus on tracking and managing clones during the evolution of software systems.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it