GPTCloneBench: A comprehensive benchmark of semantic clones and cross-language clones using GPT-3 model and SemanticCloneBench
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) has made BigCloneBench popular for semantic clone detection tools. However, BigCloneBench only has a few Java semantic clones. In addition, due to the design principles of how the benchmark was created, imbalance issues have been identified, including the ambiguity in the definition of semantic clones. Thus, ML-based clone detection algorithms trained on BigCloneBench may overlook semantic clones or report incorrect results. The SemanticCloneBench features Stack Overflow clones of several languages. However, it lacks samples for ML-based clone detection. There is also a marked lack of cross-language clone benchmarks. The widely used CLCDSA dataset lacks reusable examples that can't be used in real-world software systems, making it inadequate for ML-based clone detection. The OpenAI GPT-3 model has shown outstanding text production, including code generation and summarization. In this paper, we used the GPT-3 model to generate a complete benchmark for both semantic and cross-language clones. Using SemanticCloneBench's genuine language clones, we tested several prompts to see which yielded better results using GPT-3 question formulation. Then, we used NiCad to filter Type-1 and Type-2 clones from GPT-3 output. We used a GUI-assisted Clone Validator tool to manually validate all clone pairings with nine judges. Functionality testing and CloneCognition verified our benchmark has no syntactic clones. Later, we validated SourcererCC, Oreo and CLCDSA tools on our benchmark. The poor performance of these tools suggests GPTCloneBench has no syntactic clone. From 77,207 Clone pairs of SemanticCloneBench/GPT-3 output, we created a benchmark with 37,149 genuine semantic clone pairs, 19,288 false semantic pairs, and 20,770 cross-language clones across four languages (Java, C, C#, and Python). Our benchmark is 15-fold larger than SemanticCloneBench, has more functional code examples for software systems and programming language support than CLCDSA, and overcomes BigCloneBench's qualities, quantification, and language variety limitations. Although GPT-3 model clones are not real developer-created clones, GPTCloneBench represents a comprehensive, validated dataset/benchmark for the semantic and 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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".