Positive and Unlabeled Learning for Detecting Software Functional Clones with Adversarial Training
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".