CloneCognition: machine learning based code clone validation tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A code clone is a pair of similar code fragments, within or between software systems. To detect each possible clone pair from a software system while handling the complex code structures, the clone detection tools undergo a lot of generalization of the original source codes. The generalization often results in returning code fragments that are only coincidentally similar and not considered clones by users, and hence requires manual validation of the reported possible clones by users which is often both time-consuming and challenging. In this paper, we propose a machine learning based tool 'CloneCognition' (Open Source Codes: https://github.com/pseudoPixels/CloneCognition ; Video Demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYQjmdr8rsw) to automate the laborious manual validation process. The tool runs on top of any code clone detection tools to facilitate the clone validation process. The tool shows promising clone classification performance with an accuracy of up to 87.4%. The tool also exhibits significant improvement in the results when compared with state-of-the-art techniques for code clone validation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".