[Research Paper] CroLSim: Cross Language Software Similarity Detector Using API Documentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today's open source era, developers look forsimilar software applications in source code repositories for anumber of reasons, including, exploring alternative implementations, reusing source code, or looking for a better application. However, while there are a great many studies for finding similarapplications written in the same programming language, there isa marked lack of studies for finding similar software applicationswritten in different languages. In this paper, we fill the gapby proposing a novel modelCroLSimwhich is able to detectsimilar software applications across different programming lan-guages. In our approach, we use the API documentation tofind relationships among the API calls used by the differentprogramming languages. We adopt a deep learning based word-vector learning method to identify semantic relationships amongthe API documentation which we then use to detect cross-language similar software applications. For evaluating CroLSim, we formed a repository consisting of 8,956 Java, 7,658 C#, and 10,232 Python applications collected from GitHub. Weobserved thatCroLSimcan successfully detect similar softwareapplications across different programming languages with a meanaverage precision rate of 0.65, an average confidence rate of3.6 (out of 5) with 75% high rated successful queries, whichoutperforms all related existing approaches with a significantperformance improvement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".