The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Detecting Code Clones with Graph Neural Network and Flow-Augmented Abstract Syntax Tree
Open accessAbstract
Code clones are semantically similar code fragments pairs that are syntactically similar or different. Detection of code clones can help to reduce the cost of software maintenance and prevent bugs. Numerous approaches of detecting code clones have been proposed previously, but most of them focus on detecting syntactic clones and do not work well on semantic clones with different syntactic features. To detect semantic clones, researchers have tried to adopt deep learning for code clone detection to automatically learn latent semantic features from data. Especially, to leverage grammar information, several approaches used abstract syntax trees (AST) as input and achieved significant progress on code clone benchmarks in various programming languages. However, these AST-based approaches still can not fully leverage the structural information of code fragments, especially semantic information such as control flow and data flow. To leverage control and data flow information, in this paper, we build a graph representation of programs called flow-augmented abstract syntax tree (FA-AST). We construct FA-AST by augmenting original ASTs with explicit control and data flow edges. Then we apply two different types of graph neural networks (GNN) on FA-AST to measure the similarity of code pairs. As far as we have concerned, we are the first to apply graph neural networks on the domain of code clone detection. We apply our FA-AST and graph neural networks on two Java datasets: Google Code Jam and BigCloneBench. Our approach outperforms the state-of-the-art approaches on both Google Code Jam and BigCloneBench tasks.
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
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946
The graph neural network model
Scarselli, F., Gori, M., Tsoi, A. C., Hagenbuchner, M., & Monfardini, G. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.2008.2005605 · Cited by 9,582
On the Properties of Neural Machine Translation: Encoder–Decoder Approaches
Cho, K., van Merrienboer, B., Bahdanau, D., & Bengio, Y. (2014) · Proceedings of SSST-8, Eighth Workshop on Syntax, Semantics and Structure in Statistical Translation · doi:10.3115/v1/w14-4012 · Cited by 7,099
Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications
Zhou, J., Cui, G., Hu, S., Zhang, Z., Yang, C., Liu, Z., Wang, L., Li, C., & Sun, M. (2020) · AI Open · doi:10.1016/j.aiopen.2021.01.001 · Cited by 6,880
Neural Message Passing for Quantum Chemistry
Gilmer, J., Schoenholz, S. S., Riley, P. F., Vinyals, O., & Dahl, G. E. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1704.01212 · Cited by 3,440
Improved Semantic Representations From Tree-Structured Long Short-Term Memory Networks
Tai, K. S., Socher, R., & Manning, C. D. (2015) · Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.3115/v1/p15-1150 · Cited by 3,081
Semi-Supervised Recursive Autoencoders for Predicting Sentiment Distributions
Socher, R., Pennington, J., Huang, E., Ng, A. Y., & Manning, C. D. (2011) · Cited by 1,179
Fast Graph Representation Learning with PyTorch Geometric
Fey, M., & Lenssen, J. E. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.02428 · Cited by 1,132
DECKARD: Scalable and Accurate Tree-Based Detection of Code Clones
Jiang, L., Misherghi, G., Su, Z., & Glondu, S. (2007) · 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07) · doi:10.1109/icse.2007.30 · Cited by 1,039
A Survey on Software Clone Detection Research
Roy, C. K., & Cordy, J. R. (2007) · Cited by 723
Cited by
Wang, Y., Wang, W., Joty, S., & Hoi, S. C. H. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.00859 · Cited by 1,495
Self-citationWang, Y., Wang, W., Joty, S., & Hoi, S. C. H. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.685 · Cited by 1,495
Self-citationUnified Pre-training for Program Understanding and Generation
Ahmad, W., Chakraborty, S., Ray, B., & Chang, K.-W. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.211 · Cited by 642
CodeXGLUE: A Machine Learning Benchmark Dataset for Code Understanding and Generation
Lu, S., Guo, D., Ren, S., Huang, J., Svyatkovskiy, A., Blanco, A., Clement, C., Drain, D., Jiang, D., Tang, D., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.04664 · Cited by 536
Self-citationGraphCodeBERT: Pre-training Code Representations with Data Flow
Guo, D., Ren, S., Lu, S., Feng, Z., Tang, D., Liu, S., Zhou, L., Duan, N., Svyatkovskiy, A., Fu, S., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.08366 · Cited by 480
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, W., Li, G., Ma, B., Xia, X., & Jin, Z.
- Venue
- 2020 IEEE 27th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2020-02
- Pages
- 261-271
- OpenAlex
- W3014339000
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 33.14
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Detecting Code Clones with Graph Neural Network and Flow-Augmented Abstract Syntax Tree. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/saner48275.2020.9054857
- The paper
- Wang, W., Li, G., Ma, B., Xia, X., & Jin, Z. (2020). Detecting Code Clones with Graph Neural Network and Flow-Augmented Abstract Syntax Tree. 2020 IEEE 27th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). https://doi.org/10.1109/saner48275.2020.9054857
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.
