The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison and Evaluation of Clone Detection Tools
Abstract
Many techniques for detecting duplicated source code (software clones) have been proposed in the past. However, it is not yet clear how these techniques compare in terms of recall and precision as well as space and time requirements. This paper presents an experiment that evaluates six clone detectors based on eight large C and Java programs (altogether almost 850 KLOC). Their clone candidates were evaluated by one of the authors as independent third party. The selected techniques cover the whole spectrum of the state-of-the-art in clone detection. The techniques work on text, lexical and syntactic information, software metrics, and program dependency graphs.
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
Schleimer, S., S, W. D., & Aiken, A. (2003) · Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data · doi:10.1145/872757.872770 · Cited by 1,099 · cited 1×
“The plagiarism detectors were JPlag [37] and Moss [38].”
MethodJPlag: finding plagiarisms among a set of programs
Prechelt, L., Malpohl, G., & Philippsen, M. (2000) · Karlsruhe · doi:10.5445/ir/542000 · Cited by 144
Cited by
The state of the art in end-user software engineering
Ko, A. J., Abraham, R., Beckwith, L., Blackwell, A., Burnett, M., Erwig, M., Scaffidi, C., Lawrance, J., Lieberman, H., Myers, B., et al. (2011) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/1922649.1922658 · Cited by 633
Roy, C. K., & Cordy, J. R. (2008) · 2008 16th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension · doi:10.1109/icpc.2008.41 · Cited by 533
Towards a Big Data Curated Benchmark of Inter-project Code Clones
Svajlenko, J., Islam, J. F., Keivanloo, I., Roy, C. K., & Mia, M. M. (2014) · 2014 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution · doi:10.1109/icsme.2014.77 · Cited by 339
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
Searching for better configurations: a rigorous approach to clone evaluation
Wang, T., Harman, M., Jia, Y., & Krinke, J. (2013) · Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2491411.2491420 · Cited by 147
Self-citationAn 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
A 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
Self-citationFinding Clones with Dup: Analysis of an Experiment
Baker, B. S. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2007.70720 · Cited by 85
An Information Foraging Theory Perspective on Tools for Debugging, Refactoring, and Reuse Tasks
Fleming, S. D., Scaffidi, C., Piorkowski, D., Burnett, M., Bellamy, R., Lawrance, J., & Kwan, I. (2013) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/2430545.2430551 · Cited by 79
Detecting differences across multiple instances of code clones
Lin, Y., Xing, Z., Xue, Y., Liu, Y., Peng, X., Sun, J., & Zhao, W. (2014) · Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2568225.2568298 · Cited by 41
Does BLEU Score Work for Code Migration?
Tran, N., Tran, H., Nguyen, S., Nguyen, H., & Nguyen, T. (2019) · 2019 IEEE/ACM 27th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC) · doi:10.1109/icpc.2019.00034 · Cited by 49
(2013) · doi:10.5555/2662708.2662710 · Cited by 34
AuDeNTES: Automatic Detection of teNtative plagiarism according to a rEference Solution
Mariani, L., & Micucci, D. (2012) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/2133797.2133799 · Cited by 12
Normalizer: Augmenting Code Clone Detectors using Source Code Normalization
Ly, K. (2019) · doi:10.15368/theses.2017.21 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Bellon, S., Koschke, R., Antoniol, G., Krinke, J., & Merlo, E.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2007-09
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 577-591
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2128888088
- Cited by
- 782
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 94.95
- Type
- journal article
- 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.
