The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison and evaluation of code clone detection techniques and tools: A qualitative approach
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
GPLAG: detection of software plagiarism by program dependence graph analysis
Liu, C., Chen, C., Han, J., & Yu, P. S. (2006) · Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/1150402.1150522 · Cited by 422
An Empirical Study of Function Clones in Open Source Software
Roy, C. K., & Cordy, J. R. (2008) · 2008 15th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering · doi:10.1109/wcre.2008.54 · Cited by 137
Self-citationSim: a utility for detecting similarity in computer programs
Gitchell, D., & Tran, N. (1999) · ACM SIGCSE Bulletin · doi:10.1145/384266.299783 · Cited by 62
Cited by
Towards a Big Data Curated Benchmark of Inter-project Code Clones
Svajlenko, J., Islam, J. F., Keivanloo, I., Roy, C. K., & Mia, M. M. (2014) · 2014 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution · doi:10.1109/icsme.2014.77 · Cited by 339
Self-citationEvaluating clone detection tools with BigCloneBench
Svajlenko, J., & Roy, C. K. (2015) · 2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME) · doi:10.1109/icsm.2015.7332459 · Cited by 172
Self-citationRetrieval-Based Prompt Selection for Code-Related Few-Shot Learning
Nashid, N., Sintaha, M., & Mesbah, A. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00205 · Cited by 178
(2014) · doi:10.1145/2635868.2635901 · Cited by 159
Searching for better configurations: a rigorous approach to clone evaluation
Wang, T., Harman, M., Jia, Y., & Krinke, J. (2013) · Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2491411.2491420 · Cited by 147
A comparison of code similarity analysers
Ragkhitwetsagul, C., Krinke, J., & Clark, D. (2018) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-017-9564-7 · Cited by 122
Plagiarism in Take-home Exams: Help-seeking, Collaboration, and Systematic Cheating
Hellas, A., Leinonen, J., & Ihantola, P. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education · doi:10.1145/3059009.3059065 · Cited by 50
Does BLEU Score Work for Code Migration?
Tran, N., Tran, H., Nguyen, S., Nguyen, H., & Nguyen, T. (2019) · 2019 IEEE/ACM 27th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC) · doi:10.1109/icpc.2019.00034 · Cited by 49
(2013) · doi:10.5555/2662708.2662710 · Cited by 34
Preventing generation of verbatim memorization in language models gives a false sense of privacy
Ippolito, D., Tramer, F., Nasr, M., Zhang, C., Jagielski, M., Lee, K., Choquette Choo, C., & Carlini, N. (2023) · Proceedings of the 16th International Natural Language Generation Conference · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.inlg-main.3 · Cited by 28
“Existing plagiarism tools, and their evaluations, go far beyond verbatim matches and consider fuzzy data “clones” ranging from simple transformations (e.g., word variations or shuffles) to arbitrary semantics-preserving para-phrasing (Roy et al., 2009; Potthast et al., 2010).”
BackgroundMARBLE: Mining for Boilerplate Code to Identify API Usability Problems
Nam, D., Horvath, A., Macvean, A., Myers, B., & Vasilescu, B. (2019) · 2019 34th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1109/ase.2019.00063 · Cited by 19
A Novel Graph-Based Program Representation for Java Code Plagiarism Detection
Cheers, H., & Lin, Y. (2020) · Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering and Information Management · doi:10.1145/3378936.3378960 · Cited by 13
Normalizer: Augmenting Code Clone Detectors using Source Code Normalization
Ly, K. (2019) · doi:10.15368/theses.2017.21 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Roy, C. K., Cordy, J. R., & Koschke, R.
- Venue
- Science of Computer Programming
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-05
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 470-495
- ISSN
- 0167-6423 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2101832700
- Cited by
- 1,001
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 143.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
