Bug Replication in Code Clones: 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 clones are exactly or nearly similar code fragments in the code-base of a software system. Existing studies show that clones are directly related to bugs and inconsistencies in the code-base. Code cloning (making code clones) is suspected to be responsible for replicating bugs in the code fragments. However, there is no study on the possibilities of bug-replication through cloning process. Such a study can help us discover ways of minimizing bug-replication. Focusing on this we conduct an empirical study on the intensities of bug-replication in the code clones of the major clone-types: Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3. According to our investigation on thousands of revisions of six diverse subject systems written in two different programming languages, C and Java, a considerable proportion (i.e., up to 10%) of the code clones can contain replicated bugs. Both Type 2 and Type 3 clones have higher tendencies of having replicated bugs compared to Type 1 clones. Thus, Type 2 and Type 3 clones are more important from clone management perspectives. The extent of bug-replication in the buggy clone classes is generally very high (i.e., 100% in most of the cases). We also find that overall 55% of all the bugs experienced by the code clones can be replicated bugs. Our study shows that replication of bugs through cloning is a common phenomenon. Clone fragments having method-calls and if-conditions should be considered for refactoring with high priorities, because such clone fragments have high possibilities of containing replicated bugs. We believe that our findings are important for better maintenance of software systems, in particular, systems with code clones.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it