Unraveling Code Clone Dynamics in Deep Learning Frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep Learning (DL) frameworks play a critical role in advancing AI, and their rapid growth underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding of software quality and maintainability. DL frameworks, like other systems, are prone to code clones. Code clones refer to identical or highly similar source code fragments within the same project or even across different projects. Code cloning can have positive and negative implications for software development, influencing maintenance, readability, and bug propagation. While the existing studies focus on studying clones in DL-based applications, to our knowledge, no work has been done investigating clones, their evolution, and their impact on the maintenance of DL frameworks. In this article, we aim to address the knowledge gap concerning the evolutionary dimension of code clones in DL frameworks and the extent of code reuse across these frameworks. We empirically analyze code clones in nine popular DL frameworks, i.e., TensorFlow , Paddle , PyTorch , Aesara , Ray , MXNet , Keras , Jax , and BentoML , to investigate (1) the characteristics of the long-term code cloning evolution over releases in each framework, (2) the short-term, i.e., within-release, code cloning patterns and their influence on the long-term trends, and (3) the file-level code clones within the DL frameworks. Our findings reveal that DL frameworks adopt four distinct cloning trends: “Serpentine,” “Rise and Fall,” “Decreasing,” and “Stable” and that these trends present some common and distinct characteristics. For instance, bug-fixing activities persistently happen in clones irrespective of the clone evolutionary trend but occur more in the “Serpentine” trend. Moreover, the within-release level investigation demonstrates that short-term code cloning practices impact long-term cloning trends. The cross-framework code clone investigation reveals the presence of functional and architectural adaptation file-level cross-framework code clones across the nine studied frameworks. We provide insights that foster robust clone practices and collaborative maintenance in the development of DL frameworks.
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 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".