The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scalable detection of semantic clones
Open accessAbstract
Several techniques have been developed for identifying similar code fragments in programs. These similar fragments, referred to as code clones, can be used to identify redundant code, locate bugs, or gain insight into program design. Existing scalable approaches to clone detection are limited to finding program fragments that are similar only in their contiguous syntax. Other, semantics-based approaches are more resilient to differences in syntax, such as re-ordered statements, related statements interleaved with other un-related statements, or the use of semantically equivalent control structures. However, none of these techniques have scaled to real world code bases. These approaches capture semantic informa-tion from Program Dependence Graphs (PDGs), program represen-tations that encode data and control dependencies between state-ments and predicates. Our definition of a code clone is also based on this representation: we consider program fragments with iso-morphic PDGs to be clones. In this paper, we present the first scalable clone detection algo-rithm based on this definition of semantic clones. Our insight is the reduction of the difficult graph similarity problem to a simpler tree similarity problem by mapping carefully selected PDG subgraphs to their related structured syntax. We efficiently solve the tree sim-ilarity problem to create a scalable analysis. We have implemented this algorithm in a practical tool and performed evaluations on sev-eral million-line open source projects, including the Linux kernel. Compared with previous approaches, our tool locates significantly more clones, which are often more semantically interesting than simple copied and pasted code fragments.
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
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
Cited by
Luo, L., Ming, J., Wu, D., Liu, P., & Zhu, S. (2014) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2635868.2635900 · Cited by 220
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
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
Luo, L., Ming, J., Wu, D., Liu, P., & Zhu, S. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2017.2655046 · Cited by 144
Rahman, F., Bird, C., & Devanbu, P. (2012) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 · Cited by 132
Value-based program characterization and its application to software plagiarism detection
Jhi, Y.-C., Wang, X., Jia, X., Zhu, S., Liu, P., & Wu, D. (2011) · Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/1985793.1985899 · Cited by 83
Program Logic Based Software Plagiarism Detection
Zhang, F., Wu, D., Liu, P., & Zhu, S. (2014) · 2014 IEEE 25th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering · doi:10.1109/issre.2014.18 · Cited by 57
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
Program Characterization Using Runtime Values and Its Application to Software Plagiarism Detection
Jhi, Y.-C., Jia, X., Wang, X., Zhu, S., Liu, P., & Wu, D. (2015) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2015.2418777 · Cited by 35
Ming, J., Zhang, F., Wu, D., Liu, P., & Zhu, S. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Reliability · doi:10.1109/tr.2016.2570554 · Cited by 33
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Gabel, M., Jiang, L., & Su, Z.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Software engineering - ICSE '08
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2008
- Pages
- 321
- ISSN
- 0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2125260159
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.43
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.
