The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Clone Detection Using Abstract Syntax Suffix Trees
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.
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- 10.1109/ICSM.1997.624264 · DOI · Paper page
- kontogiannis, 1996, Pattern matching for clone and concept detection, Automated Software Engineering, 3, 79, 10.1007/BF00126960 · DOI
- 10.1109/WCRE.2001.957835 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ICSM.2005.52 · doi:10.1109/icsm.2005.52
- 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
- 10.1109/TSE.2002.1019480 · DOI · Paper page
- kapser, 2003, A taxonomy of clones in source code: The reengineers most wanted list, WCRE
- 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
- johnson, 1993, Identifying redundancy in source code using fingerprints, CASCON
- leitao, 2003, Detection of redundant code using R2D2, SCAM
- 10.1109/CSMR.2003.1192447 · doi:10.1109/csmr.2003.1192447
- 10.1145/321941.321946 · DOI · Paper page
- rieger, 2005, Effective Clone Detection without Language Barriers
- 10.1007/BF01206331 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/SCAM.2004.6 · DOI
- 10.1002/spe.4380210706 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1006/jcss.1996.0003 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/WCRE.1995.514697 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/299649.299783 · DOI
- bailey, 2002, Evaluating Clone Detection Tools for Use during Preventative Maintenance, SCAM
- cordy, 2004, Practical language-independent detection of near-miss clones, CASCON
- bellon, 2002, Vergleich von Techniken zur Erkennung duplizierten Quellcodes
- 10.1109/ICSM.1998.738528 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1006/jagm.2002.1214 · DOI
- ducasse, 1999, A Language Independent Approach for Detecting Duplicated Code, ICSM
- di lucca, 2002, An approach to identify duplicated web, COMPSAC
Cited by
Roy, C. K., & Cordy, J. R. (2008) · 2008 16th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension · doi:10.1109/icpc.2008.41 · Cited by 533
Shaping program repair space with existing patches and similar code
Jiang, J., Xiong, Y., Zhang, H., Gao, Q., & Chen, X. (2018) · Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis · doi:10.1145/3213846.3213871 · Cited by 329
(2014) · doi:10.1145/2635868.2635901 · Cited by 159
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
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)
- 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
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.
