The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A language independent approach for detecting duplicated code
Abstract
Code duplication is one of the factors that severely complicates the maintenance and evolution of large software systems. Techniques for detecting duplicated code exist but rely mostly on parsers, technology that has proven to be brittle in the face of different languages and dialects. In this paper we show that is possible to circumvent this hindrance by applying a language independent and visual approach, i.e. a tool that requires no parsing, yet is able to detect a significant amount of code duplication. We validate our approach on a number of case studies, involving four different implementation languages and ranging from 256 K up to 13 Mb of source code size.
Overview
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- 10.1109/WCRE.1997.624575 · doi:10.1109/wcre.1997.624575
- madhavji, 1985, Compare: A collusion detector for pascal, Techniques et sciences informatiques, 4, 489
- manber, 1994, Finding similar files in a large file system, Proc 1994 Winter USENIX Technical Conference, 1
- 10.1109/ICSM.1996.565012 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/32.295894 · DOI
- 10.1109/WCRE.1993.287773 · doi:10.1109/wcre.1993.287773
- sommerville, 1996, Software Engineering
- 10.1145/800037.800954 · DOI
- 10.1109/32.177365 · DOI · Paper page
- helfman, 1995, Dotplot Patterns: A Literal Look at Pattern Languages, TAPOS, 2, 31
- halstead, 1977, Elements of Software Science
- johnson, 1993, Identifying Redundancy in Source Code using Fingerprints, Proceedings ofCASCON 93, 171
- 10.1093/comjnl/31.1.1 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSM.1998.738528 · DOI · Paper page
- baker, 1992, A Program for Identifying Duplicated Code, Computing Science and Statistics, 24, 49
- 10.1109/ICSM.1994.336783 · DOI
Cited by
Roy, C. K., & Cordy, J. R. (2008) · 2008 16th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension · doi:10.1109/icpc.2008.41 · Cited by 533
(2009) · doi:10.1145/1518701.1518944 · Cited by 447
Subjective evaluation of software evolvability using code smells: An empirical study
Mäntylä, M. V., & Lassenius, C. (2007) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-006-9002-8 · Cited by 171
Evaluating 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
Deep learning similarities from different representations of source code
Tufano, M., Watson, C., Bavota, G., Di Penta, M., White, M., & Poshyvanyk, D. (2018) · Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories · doi:10.1145/3196398.3196431 · Cited by 158
Metadata
- Authors
- Ducasse, S., Rieger, M., & Demeyer, S.
- Venue
- Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance - 1999 (ICSM'99). 'Software Maintenance for Business Change' (Cat. No.99CB36360)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 1999
- Pages
- 109-118
- OpenAlex
- W2128698639
- Cited by
- 615
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.06
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A language independent approach for detecting duplicated code. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/icsm.1999.792593
- The paper
- Ducasse, S., Rieger, M., & Demeyer, S. (1999). A language independent approach for detecting duplicated code. Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance - 1999 (ICSM'99). 'Software Maintenance for Business Change' (Cat. No.99CB36360). https://doi.org/10.1109/icsm.1999.792593
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.
