Document Open Access Logo

Subjectivity in Clone Judgment: Can We Ever Agree?

Authors Cory Kapser, Paul Anderson, Michael Godfrey, Rainer Koschke, Matthias Rieger, Filip van Rysselberghe, Peter Weißgerber



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

DagSemProc.06301.12.pdf
  • Filesize: 117 kB
  • 5 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Cory Kapser
Paul Anderson
Michael Godfrey
Rainer Koschke
Matthias Rieger
Filip van Rysselberghe
Peter Weißgerber

Cite AsGet BibTex

Cory Kapser, Paul Anderson, Michael Godfrey, Rainer Koschke, Matthias Rieger, Filip van Rysselberghe, and Peter Weißgerber. Subjectivity in Clone Judgment: Can We Ever Agree?. In Duplication, Redundancy, and Similarity in Software. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 6301, pp. 1-5, Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2007)
https://doi.org/10.4230/DagSemProc.06301.12

Abstract

An objective definition of what a code clone is currently eludes the field. A small study was performed at an international workshop to elicit judgments and discussions from world experts regarding what characteristics define a code clone. Less than half of the clone candidates judged had 80% agreement amongst the judges. Judges appeared to differ primarily in their criteria for judgment rather than their interpretation of the clone candidates. In subsequent open discussion the judges provided several reasons for their judgments. The study casts additional doubt on the reliability of experimental results in the field when the full criterion for clone judgment is not spelled out.
Keywords
  • Code clone
  • study
  • inter-rater agreement
  • ill-defined problem

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail