Clone-World: A visual analytic system for large scale software clones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the era of big data approaching, the number of software systems, their dependencies, as well as the complexity of the individual system is becoming larger and more intricate. Understanding these evolving software systems is thus a primary challenge for cost-effective software management and maintenance. In this paper we perform a case study with evolving code clones. The programmers often need to manually analyze the co-evolution of clone fragments to decide about refactoring, tracking, and bug removal. However, manual analysis is time consuming, and nearly infeasible for a large number of clones, e.g., with millions of similarity pairs, where clones are evolving over hundreds of software revisions. We propose an interactive visual analytics system, Clone-World , which leverages big data visualization approach to manage code clones in large software systems. Clone-World , gives an intuitive yet powerful solution to the clone analytic problems. Clone-World combines multiple information-linked zoomable views, where users can explore and analyze clones through interactive exploration in real time. User studies and experts’ reviews suggest that Clone-World may assist developers in many real-life software development and maintenance scenarios. We believe that Clone-World will ease the management and maintenance of clones, and inspire future innovation to adapt visual analytics to manage big software systems.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".