On the Relationships Between Stability and Bug-Proneness of Code Clones: An Empirical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exact or similar copies of code fragments in a code base are known as code clones. Code clones are considered as one of the serious code smells. Stability is a widely investigated perspective of assessing the impacts of clones on software systems. A number of existing studies show that clones are often less stable than non-cloned code. This suggests that clones change more frequently than non-cloned code and thus may require comparatively more maintenance efforts. Again, frequent changes to clones may increase the likelihood of missing change propagation to the co-change candidates leading to inconsistencies or bugs. However, none of the existing studies investigate whether stability of clones is related to the bug-proneness. In this paper, we present an empirical study that analyzes the relationships between stability and bug-proneness of clones. We identify bug-fix commits by analyzing the commit messages from software repositories. We then identify the clones those are changed in the bug-fix commits as bug-prone clones. We then compare the stability of buggy and non-buggy clones considering the fine-grained syntactic change types and their significance.,,Our experimental results based on five open-source Java systems of different size and application domains show that (1) stability and bug-proneness of code clones are related and this relationship is statistically significant, (2) for both exact (Type 1) and near-miss (Type 2 and Type 3) clones, buggy clones tend to have higher frequency of changes than non-buggy clones, (3) the bug-proneness of Type 2 and Type 3 clones tend to be strongly related with their stability compared to Type 1 clones, and (4) the relation between the stability and the bug-proneness of clones with respect to fine-grained change types is likely to be influenced by the changes of low to medium significance. We believe that our findings are important and potentially useful in identifying and prioritizing candidate clones for management.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".