Source Code Comments: Overlooked in the Realm of Code Clone Detection
June 25, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Sandeep Kaur Kuttal, Akash Ghosh
arXiv ID
2006.14505
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Citations
3
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Reusing code can produce duplicate or near-duplicate code clones in code repositories. Current code clone detection techniques, like Program Dependence Graphs, rely on code structure and their dependencies to detect clones. These techniques are expensive, using large amounts of processing power, time, and memory. In practice, programmers often utilize code comments to comprehend and reuse code, as comments carry important domain knowledge. But current code detection techniques ignore code comments, mainly due to the ambiguity of the English language. Recent advances in information retrieval techniques may have the potential to utilize code comments for clone detection. We investigated this by empirically comparing the accuracy of detecting clones with solely comments versus solely source code (without comments) on the JHotDraw package, which contains 315 classes and 27K lines of code. To detect clones at the file level, we used a topic modeling technique, Latent Dirichlet Allocation, to analyze code comments and GRAPLE -- utilizing Program Dependency Graph -- to analyze code. Our results show 94.86 recall and 84.21 precision with Latent Dirichlet Allocation and 28.7 recall and 55.39 precision using GRAPLE. We found Latent Dirichlet Allocation generated false positives in cases where programs lacked quality comments. But this limitation can be addressed by using a hybrid approach: utilizing code comments at the file level to reduce the clone set and then using Program Dependency Graph-based techniques at the method level to detect precise clones. Our further analysis across Java and Python packages, Java Swing and PyGUI, found a recall of 74.86\% and a precision of 84.21\%. Our findings call for reexamining the assumptions regarding the use of code comments in current clone detection techniques.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Software Engineering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
An Overview on Smart Contracts: Challenges, Advances and Platforms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Slither: A Static Analysis Framework For Smart Contracts
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
ContractFuzzer: Fuzzing Smart Contracts for Vulnerability Detection
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted