The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Mutation/Injection-Based Automatic Framework for Evaluating Code Clone Detection Tools
Abstract
In recent years many methods and tools for software clone detection have been proposed. While some work has been done on assessing and comparing performance of these tools, very little empirical evaluation has been done. In particular, accuracy measures such as precision and recall have only been roughly estimated, due both to problems in creating a validated clone benchmark against which tools can be compared, and to the manual effort required to hand check large numbers of candidate clones. In this paper we propose an automated method for empirically evaluating clone detection tools that leverages mutation-based techniques to overcome these limitations by automatically synthesizing large numbers of known clones based on an editing theory of clone creation. Our framework is effective in measuring recall and precision of clone detection tools for various types of fine-grained clones in real systems without manual intervention.
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
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-citation
Cited by
DéjàVu: a map of code duplicates on GitHub
Lopes, C. V., Maj, P., Martins, P., Saini, V., Yang, D., Zitny, J., Sajnani, H., & Vitek, J. (2017) · Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · doi:10.1145/3133908 · Cited by 183
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
Self-citationA 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
(2013) · doi:10.5555/2662708.2662710 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Roy, C. K., & Cordy, J. R.
- Venue
- 2009 International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation Workshops
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2009
- Pages
- 157-166
- OpenAlex
- W2100060170
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.97
- 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
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.
