CLCDSA: Cross Language Code Clone Detection using Syntactical Features and API Documentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software clones are detrimental to software maintenance and evolution and as a result many clone detectors have been proposed. These tools target clone detection in software applications written in a single programming language. However, a software application may be written in different languages for different platforms to improve the application's platform compatibility and adoption by users of different platforms. Cross language clones (CLCs) introduce additional challenges when maintaining multi-platform applications and would likely go undetected using existing tools. In this paper, we propose CLCDSA, a cross language clone detector which can detect CLCs without extensive processing of the source code and without the need to generate an intermediate representation. The proposed CLCDSA model analyzes different syntactic features of source code across different programming languages to detect CLCs. To support large scale clone detection, the CLCDSA model uses an action filter based on cross language API call similarity to discard non-potential clones. The design methodology of CLCDSA is two-fold: (a) it detects CLCs on the fly by comparing the similarity of features, and (b) it uses a deep neural network based feature vector learning model to learn the features and detect CLCs. Early evaluation of the model observed an average precision, recall and F-measure score of 0.55, 0.86, and 0.64 respectively for the first phase and 0.61, 0.93, and 0.71 respectively for the second phase which indicates that CLCDSA outperforms all available models in detecting cross language clones.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".