Positive and Unlabeled Learning for Detecting Software Functional Clones with Adversarial Training
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
Software clone detection is an important problem for software maintenance and evolution and it has attracted lots of attentions. However, existing approaches ignore a fact that people would label the pairs of code fragments as \emph{clone} only if they happen to discover the clones while a huge number of undiscovered clone pairs and non-clone pairs are left unlabeled. In this paper, we argue that the clone detection task in the real-world should be formalized as a Positive-Unlabeled (PU) learning problem, and address this problem by proposing a novel positive and unlabeled learning approach, namely CDPU, to effectively detect software functional clones, i.e., pieces of codes with similar functionality but differing in both syntactical and lexical level, where adversarial training is employed to improve the robustness of the learned model to those non-clone pairs that look extremely similar but behave differently. Experiments on software clone detection benchmarks indicate that the proposed approach together with adversarial training outperforms the state-of-the-art approaches for software functional clone detection.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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