Comparison and Evaluation of Clone Detection Tools

By Stefan Bellon, Rainer Koschke, G. Antoniol, Jens Krinke, E. Merlo. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2007

862 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems, Signal Processing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a369ec7cc8a6d84bbae2b1f0fa073a06e7d32ac0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems

In Signal Processing

Citations in the corpus

The plastic surgery hypothesis (2014, background): “The presence of code clones has led to much work on techniques for investigating and evaluating this form of apparent redundancy [5, 38].”
Software clone detection: A systematic review (2013, background): “We list here basic types of clones [20,135,187].”
Comparison and evaluation of code clone detection techniques and tools: A qualitative approach (2009, methodology): “d postsql(C, 235K LOC) T [99, 114], L [84, 16, 4, 14, 72], S [72], Experiments [18, 4], G [46] S.”
Survey of Research on Software Clones (2006, methodology): “The data is reported at an ordinal scale - -, -, +, + + where - - is worst (the exact measures can be found in the paper to this study [60, 57]).”
Finding Clones with Dup: Analysis of an Experiment (2007, methodology): “Ç”
An analysis of the variability in forty preprocessor-based software product lines (2010, background): “Generally, the problem is related to the determination of code clones [7].”
A Survey on Software Clone Detection Research (2007, methodology): “For instance, in Bellon’s tool comparison experiment [36, 34], the minimum clone size was set to 6 unprocessed lines of code.”
NICAD: Accurate Detection of Near-Miss Intentional Clones Using Flexible Pretty-Printing and Code Normalization (2008, methodology): “Several studies show that lightweight text-based techniques can find clones with high accuracy and confidence, but detected clones often do not correspond to appropriate syntactic units [7, 30].”
Neural Detection of Semantic Code Clones Via Tree-Based Convolution (2019, background): “One common taxonomy among researchers is to group code clones into four types [3, 4, 5].”
Learning-Based Recursive Aggregation of Abstract Syntax Trees for Code Clone Detection (2019, background): “In 2007, three surveys [10]–[12] described, categorized and evaluated the existing approaches to code clone detection.”
An Empirical Study of Function Clones in Open Source Software (2008, methodology): “There have been many empirical studies on cloning, for example every new technique comes with some sort of empirical validation [25, 24], and empirical studies are used when comparing tools [5, 6].”
Towards a Big Data Curated Benchmark of Inter-project Code Clones (2014, neutral): “[8] by validating 2% of the union of six clone detectors for eight subject systems, a task that required 77 hours of manual efforts.”
A Large-Scale Study on Repetitiveness, Containment, and Composability of Routines in Open-Source Projects (2016, background): “The practice of copying-and-pasting source code leads to cloned code [12, 57].”