The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Identifying similar code with program dependence graphs
Abstract
We present an approach to identifying similar code in programs based on finding similar subgraphs in attributed directed graphs. This approach is used on program dependence graphs and therefore considers not only the syntactic structure of programs but also the data flow within (as an abstraction of the semantics). As a result, there is no tradeoff between precision and recall; our approach is very good in both. An evaluation of our prototype implementation shows that the approach is feasible and gives very good results despite the non polynomial complexity of the problem.
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
JPlag: finding plagiarisms among a set of programs
Prechelt, L., Malpohl, G., & Philippsen, M. (2000) · Karlsruhe · doi:10.5445/ir/542000 · Cited by 144
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- komondoor, 2001, Using slicing to identify duplication in source code, Eigth International Static Analysis Symposium (SAS)
- 10.1109/WCRE.1997.624575 · doi:10.1109/wcre.1997.624575
- krinke, 1998, Validation of measurement software as an application of slicing and constraint solving, Information and Software Technology, 40, 10.1016/S0950-5849(98)00090-1 · doi:10.1016/s0950-5849(98)00090-1
- 10.1109/ICSM.1996.565012 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/comjnl/39.9.741 · DOI
- 10.1145/134510.134564 · DOI
- ducasse, 1999, A language independent approach for detecting duplicated code, Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance
- 10.1109/ICSM.1998.738528 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/65979.65980 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/WCRE.2000.891463 · doi:10.1109/wcre.2000.891463
- 10.1145/77606.77608 · doi:10.1145/77606.77608
- 10.1109/ICSE.1992.753516 · doi:10.1109/icse.1992.753516
- 10.1109/WCRE.1995.514697 · DOI · Paper page
- bachl, 2000, Erkennung isomorpher Subgraphen und deren Anwendung beim Zeichnen von Graphen
- kälviäinen, 1990, Comparisons of attributed graph matching algorithms for computer vision Technical report
Cited by
GPLAG: detection of software plagiarism by program dependence graph analysis
Liu, C., Chen, C., Han, J., & Yu, P. S. (2006) · Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/1150402.1150522 · Cited by 422
Deep learning similarities from different representations of source code
Tufano, M., Watson, C., Bavota, G., Di Penta, M., White, M., & Poshyvanyk, D. (2018) · Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories · doi:10.1145/3196398.3196431 · Cited by 158
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-citationBehavior based software theft detection
Wang, X., Jhi, Y.-C., Zhu, S., & Liu, P. (2009) · Proceedings of the 16th ACM conference on Computer and communications security · doi:10.1145/1653662.1653696 · Cited by 101
Finding 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Krinke, J.
- Venue
- Proceedings Eighth Working Conference on Reverse Engineering
- Publisher
- IEEE Comput. Soc
- Published
- 2002-11-13
- Pages
- 301-309
- ISSN
- 1095-1350 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2096491586
- Cited by
- 616
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.07
- 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.
