Cited by 173Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies

Evaluating clone detection tools with BigCloneBench

Svajlenko, Jeffrey, Roy, Chanchal K.·2015·2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)

Abstract

Many clone detection tools have been proposed in the literature. However, our knowledge of their performance in real software systems is limited, particularly their recall. In this paper, we use our big data clone benchmark, BigCloneBench, to evaluate the recall of ten clone detection tools. BigCloneBench is a collection of eight million validated clones within IJaDataset-2.0, a big data software repository containing 25,000 open-source Java systems. BigCloneBench contains both intra-project and inter-project clones of the four primary clone types. We use this benchmark to evaluate the recall of the tools per clone type and across the entire range of clone syntactical similarity. We evaluate the tools for both single-system and cross-project detection scenarios. Using multiple clone-matching metrics, we evaluate the quality of the tools' reporting of the benchmark clones with respect to refactoring and automatic clone analysis use-cases. We compare these real-world results against our Mutation and Injection Framework, a synthetic benchmark, to reveal deeper understanding of the tools. We found that the tools have strong recall for Type-1 and Type-2 clones, as well as Type-3 clones with high syntactical similarity. The tools have weaker detection of clones with lower syntactical similarity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icsm.2015.7332459

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A software repository usually contains 7-23% cloned codes.

    “leading a software repository usually containing 7-23% cloned codes (Svajlenko and Roy, 2015).”

    From ReACC: A Retrieval-Augmented Code Completion Framework (2022) · cites this paper as Svajlenko and Roy, 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Svajlenko, J., & Roy, C. K.
Affiliations
University of Saskatchewan (CA)
Venue
2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2015-09
Pages
131-140
ISSN
1063-6773 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2158439356
Cited by
172
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 1
FWCI
10.72
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Keywords
clone detection, BigCloneBench, memory retrieval, refactoring, synthetic benchmark

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