Finding Clones with Dup: Analysis of an Experiment
Abstract
An experiment was carried out by a group of scientists to compare different tools and techniques for detecting duplicated or near-duplicated source code. The overall comparative results are presented elsewhere. This paper takes a closer look at the results for one tool, Dup, which finds code sections that are textually the same or the same except for systematic substitution of parameters such as identifiers and constants. Various factors that influenced the results are identified and their impact on the results is assessed via rerunning Dup with changed options and modifications. These improve the performance of Dup with regard to the experiment and could be incorporated into a postprocessor to be used with other tools.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Programmers tend to reuse existing code snippets by copying part of code with or without minor modifications to accelerate software development.
“programmers tend to reuse an existing code snippet by copying part of code with or without minor modifications to accelerate software development (Roy and Cordy, 2008; Baker, 2007)”
From ReACC: A Retrieval-Augmented Code Completion Framework (2022) · cites this paper as Baker, 2007
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
ReACC: A Retrieval-Augmented Code Completion Framework
Lu, S., Duan, N., Han, H., Guo, D., Hwang, S.-W., & Svyatkovskiy, A. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.07722 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
“This is unnatural from human perspective, as studies demonstrate that programmers tend to reuse an existing code snippet by copying part of code with or without minor modifications to accelerate software development (Roy and Cordy, 2008; Baker, 2007), leading a software repository usually containing 7-23% cloned codes…”
Background
- Authors
- Baker, B. S.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Baker, Brenda S.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2007-09
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 608-621
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-3520
- OpenAlex
- W2102543548
- Cited by
- 85
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 18.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Data Quality and Management
- Keywords
- code clone detection, code similarity, tool performance evaluation
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
