Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 314

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Clone Detection Using Abstract Syntax Suffix Trees

Koschke, Rainer, Falke, Raimar, Frenzel, Pierre·2006·2006 13th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering
DOI 10.1109/wcre.2006.18
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Reusing software through copying and pasting is a continuous plague in software development despite the fact that it creates serious maintenance problems. Various techniques have been proposed to find duplicated redundant code (also known as software clones). A recent study has compared these techniques and shown that token-based clone detection based on suffix trees is extremely fast but yields clone candidates that are often no syntactic units. Current techniques based on abstract syntax trees-on the other hand-find syntactic clones but are considerably less efficient. This paper describes how we can make use of suffix trees to find clones in abstract syntax trees. This new approach is able to find syntactic clones in linear time and space. The paper reports the results of several large case studies in which we empirically compare the new technique to other techniques using the Bellon benchmark for clone detectors

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/wcre.2006.18

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. 10.1109/ICSM.1997.624264 · DOI · Paper page
  2. kontogiannis, 1996, Pattern matching for clone and concept detection, Automated Software Engineering, 3, 79, 10.1007/BF00126960 · DOI
  3. 10.1109/WCRE.2001.957835 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1109/ICSM.2005.52 · doi:10.1109/icsm.2005.52
  5. komondoor, 2001, Using slicing to identify duplication in source code, Proc Int Symposium on Static Analysis, 10.1007/3-540-47764-0_3 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1109/TSE.2002.1019480 · DOI · Paper page
  7. kapser, 2003, A taxonomy of clones in source code: The reengineers most wanted list, WCRE
  8. higo, 2002, On software maintenance process improvement based on code clone analysis, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2559, 10.1007/3-540-36209-6_17 · doi:10.1007/3-540-36209-6_17
  9. johnson, 1993, Identifying redundancy in source code using fingerprints, CASCON
  10. leitao, 2003, Detection of redundant code using R2D2, SCAM
  11. 10.1109/CSMR.2003.1192447 · doi:10.1109/csmr.2003.1192447
  12. 10.1145/321941.321946 · DOI · Paper page
  13. rieger, 2005, Effective Clone Detection without Language Barriers
  14. 10.1007/BF01206331 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1109/SCAM.2004.6 · DOI
  16. 10.1002/spe.4380210706 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1006/jcss.1996.0003 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1109/WCRE.1995.514697 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1145/299649.299783 · DOI
  20. bailey, 2002, Evaluating Clone Detection Tools for Use during Preventative Maintenance, SCAM
  21. cordy, 2004, Practical language-independent detection of near-miss clones, CASCON
  22. bellon, 2002, Vergleich von Techniken zur Erkennung duplizierten Quellcodes
  23. 10.1109/ICSM.1998.738528 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1006/jagm.2002.1214 · DOI
  25. ducasse, 1999, A Language Independent Approach for Detecting Duplicated Code, ICSM
  26. di lucca, 2002, An approach to identify duplicated web, COMPSAC

Cited by

See all 314

Metadata

Authors
Koschke, R., Falke, R., & Frenzel, P.
Venue
2006 13th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2006
Pages
253-262
ISSN
1095-1350 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/wcre.2006.18
OpenAlex
W2166278331
Cited by
314
References
0
FWCI
11.28
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clone Detection Using Abstract Syntax Suffix Trees. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/wcre.2006.18
The paper
Koschke, R., Falke, R., & Frenzel, P. (2006). Clone Detection Using Abstract Syntax Suffix Trees. 2006 13th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/wcre.2006.18

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.