Evaluating Performance of Clone Detection Tools in Detecting Cloned Cochange Candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Code reuse by copying and pasting from one place to another place in a codebase is a very common scenario in software development which is also one of the most typical reasons for introducing code clones. There is a huge availability of tools to detect such cloned fragments and a lot of studies have already been done for efficient clone detection. There are also several studies for evaluating those tools considering their clone detection effectiveness. Unfortunately, we find no study which compares different clone detection tools in the perspective of detecting cloned co-change candidates during software evolution. Detecting cloned co-change candidates is essential for clone tracking. In this study, we wanted to explore this dimension of code clone research. We used six promising clone detection tools to identify cloned and non-cloned co-change candidates from six C and Java-based subject systems and evaluated the performance of those clone detection tools in detecting the cloned co-change fragments. Our findings show that a good clone detector may not perform well in detecting cloned co-change candidates. The amount of unique lines covered by a clone detector and the number of detected clone fragments plays an important role in its performance. The findings of this study can enrich a new dimension of code clone research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".