Java bytecode clone detection via relaxation on code fingerprint and semantic web reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While finding clones in source code has drawn considerable attention, there has been only very little work in finding similar fragments in binary code and intermediate languages, such as Java bytecode. Some recent studies showed that it is possible to find distinct sets of clone pairs in bytecode representation of source code, which are not always detectable at source code-level. In this paper, we present a bytecode clone detection approach, called SeByte, which exploits the benefits of compilers (the bytecode representation) for detecting a specific type of semantic clones in Java bytecode. SeByte is a hybrid metric-based approach that takes advantage of both, Semantic Web technologies and Set theory. We use a two-step analysis process: (1) Pattern matching via Semantic Web querying and reasoning, and (2) Content matching, using Jaccard coefficient for set similarity measurement. Semantic Web-based pattern matching helps us to find method blocks which share similar patterns even in case of extreme dissimilarity (e.g., numerous repetitions or large gaps). Although it leads to high recall, it gives high false positive rate. We thus use the content matching (via Jaccard) to reduce false positive rate by focusing on content semantic resemblance. Our evaluation of four Java systems and five other tools shows that SeByte can detect a large number of semantic clones that are either not detected or supported by source code based clone detectors.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".