A Machine Learning Based Approach for Evaluating Clone Detection Tools for a Generalized and Accurate Precision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important measure of clone detection performance is precision. However, there has been a marked lack of research into methods for efficiently and accurately measuring the precision of a clone detection tool. Instead, tool authors simply validate a small random sample of the clones their tools detected in a subject software system. Since there could be many thousands of clones reported by the tool, such a small random sample cannot guarantee an accurate and generalized measure of the tool’s precision for all the varieties of clones that can occur in any arbitrary software system. In this paper, we propose a machine-learning-based approach that can cluster similar clones together, and which can be used to maximize the variety of clones examined when measuring precision, while significantly reducing the biases a specific subject system has on the generality of the precision measured. Our technique reduces the efforts in measuring precision, while doubling the variety of clones validated and reducing biases that harm the generality of the measure by up to an order of magnitude. Our case study with the NiCad clone detector and the Java class library shows that our approach is effective in efficiently measuring an accurate and generalized precision of a subject clone detection tool.
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 | 0.013 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".