Detecting differences across multiple instances of code clones
Open accessAbstract
Clone detectors find similar code fragments (i.e., instances of code clones) and report large numbers of them for industrial systems. To maintain or manage code clones, developers often have to investigate differences of multiple cloned code fragments. However,existing program differencing techniques compare only two code fragments at a time. Developers then have to manually combine several pairwise differencing results. In this paper, we present an approach to automatically detecting differences across multiple clone instances. We have implemented our approach as an Eclipse plugin and evaluated its accuracy with three Java software systems. Our evaluation shows that our algorithm has precision over 97.66% and recall over 95.63% in three open source Java projects. We also conducted a user study of 18 developers to evaluate the usefulness of our approach for eight clone-related refactoring tasks. Our study shows that our approach can significantly improve developers’performance in refactoring decisions, refactoring details, and task completion time on clone-related refactoring tasks. Automatically detecting differences across multiple clone instances also opens opportunities for building practical applications of code clones in software maintenance, such as auto-generation of application skeleton, intelligent simultaneous code editing.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
MCIDiff and CloneTracker consider the possible set of clones, show the length and the number of instances of all code clones, not just nearby ones, to help the developer predict E(Cw) of handling any or all of these clones.
“These two clone-tracking tools consider the possible set of clones, show the length and the number of instances of all code clones, not just nearby ones, to help the developer predict E(C w ) of handing any or all of these clones.”
From Foraging and navigations, fundamentally: developers' predictions of value and cost (2016) · cites this paper as [28]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 41
- Authors
- Lin, Y., Xing, Z., Xue, Y., Liu, Y., Peng, X., Sun, J., & Zhao, W.
- Affiliations
- Fudan University (CN)
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- Singapore University of Technology and Design (SG)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2014-05-31
- Pages
- 164-174
- ISSN
- 0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1990090830
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 4.83
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) (publishedVersion)
- Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge (InK) (Singapore Management University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Fudan University
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Keywords
- code clones, clone detection, Eclipse plug-in, Java programs, software maintenance, developer performance
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