Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2111.10793

Challenging Machine Learning-based Clone Detectors via Semantic-preserving Code Transformations

Abstract

Software clone detection identifies similar code snippets. It has been an active research topic that attracts extensive attention over the last two decades. In recent years, machine learning (ML) based detectors, especially deep learning-based ones, have demonstrated impressive capability on clone detection. It seems that this longstanding problem has already been tamed owing to the advances in ML techniques. In this work, we would like to challenge the robustness of the recent ML-based clone detectors through code semantic-preserving transformations. We first utilize fifteen simple code transformation operators combined with commonly-used heuristics (i.e., Random Search, Genetic Algorithm, and Markov Chain Monte Carlo) to perform equivalent program transformation. Furthermore, we propose a deep reinforcement learning-based sequence generation (DRLSG) strategy to effectively guide the search process of generating clones that could escape from the detection. We then evaluate the ML-based detectors with the pairs of original and generated clones. We realize our method in a framework named CloneGen. CloneGen In evaluation, we challenge the two state-of-the-art ML-based detectors and four traditional detectors with the code clones after semantic-preserving transformations via the aid of CloneGen. Surprisingly, our experiments show that, despite the notable successes achieved by existing clone detectors, the ML models inside these detectors still cannot distinguish numerous clones produced by the code transformations in CloneGen. In addition, adversarial training of ML-based clone detectors using clones generated by CloneGen can improve their robustness and accuracy. CloneGen Meanwhile, compared with the commonly-used heuristics, the DRLSG strategy has shown the best effectiveness in generating code clones to decrease the detection accuracy of the ML-based detectors.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Weiwei Zhang, Shengjian Guo, Hongyu Zhang, Yulei Sui, Yinxing Xue, Yun Xu. 2021-11-21. Challenging Machine Learning-based Clone Detectors via Semantic-preserving Code Transformations. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2023.3240118

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE