MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101121486 · doi:10.1109/compsac.2011.69

Reasoning about Global Clones: Scalable Semantic Clone Detection

2011· article· en· W2101121486 on OpenAlexaff
Philipp Schügerl, Juergen Rilling, Philippe Charland

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSemantic reasonerclone (Java method)Context (archaeology)ScalabilitySemantic WebSPARQLData miningSoftware engineeringInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebDatabaseArtificial intelligenceRDF

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Semantic Web is slowly transforming the Web as we know it into a machine understandable pool of information that can be consumed and reasoned about by various clients. Source code is no exception to this trend and various communities have proposed standards to share code as linked data. With the availability of large amounts of open source code published in publicly accessible repositories, the introduction of massive horizontal scaling frameworks, and cloud computing infrastructures, a new era of software mining across information silos is reshaping the software engineering landscape. Given these technological advances, analyzing code at a global scale, across systems, projects and organizational boundaries, becomes feasible. In this paper, we introduce a clone detection algorithm and its implementation that can scale to such large global datasets, by modeling clones using description logic and applying a horizontal scaling Semantic Web reasoner. We demonstrate how our simple feature vector that only uses control statements, data types and method calls, can yield results similar to other popular clone detection tools. Our approach does not only allow us to reliably identify clones in a global context. By using a semantic reasoner, it also allows us to expand clone detection to a new class of semantic clones. We have compared our algorithm to some of the leading clone detection tools (DECKARD, CCFinder, JCD, and Simian) in order to validate our approach and show the differences in detected clones and performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207