Revisiting Code Similarity Evaluation with Abstract Syntax Tree Edit Distance

Overview

• This paper revisits the evaluation of code similarity using Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) edit distance.
• The authors propose a new method for calculating AST edit distance that is more accurate and efficient than previous approaches.
• The paper also introduces a new dataset for evaluating code similarity and compares the performance of different methods on this dataset.

Plain English Explanation

When writing computer programs, developers often need to compare different pieces of code to see how similar they are. This can be useful for tasks like detecting plagiarism, finding reusable code, and understanding code evolution. One common way to measure code similarity is to compare the Abstract Syntax Trees (ASTs) of the code, which represent the structure of the code in a more abstract form.

The authors of this paper have developed a new method for calculating the edit distance between ASTs, which is a measure of how different two ASTs are. This new method is more accurate and efficient than previous approaches, and the authors have also created a new dataset for evaluating code similarity that can be used to test different methods.

The key idea behind the new AST edit distance method is to use a more sophisticated algorithm that takes into account the specific characteristics of programming languages, such as the order of function arguments and the use of semicolons. This allows the method to better capture the nuances of code structure and produce more accurate similarity scores.

The new dataset introduced in the paper includes a variety of code samples from different programming languages, which can be used to evaluate how well different code similarity methods perform on a range of code types. This can help researchers and developers choose the best method for their specific needs, whether that's detecting plagiarism, finding reusable code, or understanding code evolution.

Technical Explanation

The paper proposes a new approach for calculating the edit distance between Abstract Syntax Trees (ASTs), which is a key metric for evaluating code similarity. The authors' method, called TSED (Tree-Structured Edit Distance), takes into account the specific characteristics of programming languages when computing the edit distance, such as the order of function arguments and the use of semicolons.

The TSED algorithm works by defining a set of edit operations (e.g., node insertion, deletion, and substitution) and assigning different costs to these operations based on the programming language constructs involved. This allows the algorithm to better capture the nuances of code structure and produce more accurate similarity scores compared to previous AST edit distance methods.

To evaluate the performance of TSED, the authors introduce a new dataset called CodeReuse, which includes code samples from a variety of programming languages, including Java, Python, and C++. They compare the performance of TSED to other state-of-the-art code similarity methods, such as CSA-Trans and CodeEditorBench, and show that TSED outperforms these methods on the CodeReuse dataset.

The authors also discuss the potential applications of their approach, such as detecting code plagiarism, finding reusable code, and understanding code evolution. They suggest that their work can be particularly useful in scenarios where the structure of the code is more important than the specific variable names or function calls, such as in code refactoring or program transformation tasks.

Critical Analysis

The authors present a compelling case for their TSED approach to AST edit distance calculation, and the results on the CodeReuse dataset are promising. However, there are a few potential limitations and areas for further research that could be considered:

1. Generalizability: While the CodeReuse dataset covers a range of programming languages, it may not be representative of all the challenges and nuances that can arise in real-world code similarity tasks. Evaluating the performance of TSED on a wider range of datasets and use cases would help validate its robustness and generalizability.

2. Interpretability: The TSED algorithm relies on a set of predefined edit operations and costs, which may not be easily interpretable or customizable for domain experts. Exploring more transparent and human-centered approaches to code similarity evaluation could be a valuable direction for future research.

3. Computational Efficiency: While the authors claim that TSED is more efficient than previous AST edit distance methods, the actual computational cost of the algorithm is not thoroughly analyzed in the paper. Investigating the scalability of TSED for large-scale code repositories or real-time applications would be an important consideration.

4. Synergies with Other Techniques: The paper focuses solely on AST edit distance as a code similarity metric, but it could be interesting to explore how TSED could complement or be combined with other approaches, such as deep learning-based methods or text-based similarity measures, to further improve the accuracy and robustness of code similarity evaluation.

Overall, the paper presents a valuable contribution to the field of code similarity evaluation, and the TSED approach appears to be a promising step forward. Addressing the potential limitations and exploring synergies with other techniques could further enhance the impact and applicability of this work.

Conclusion

This paper revisits the problem of evaluating code similarity using Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) edit distance. The authors propose a new method called TSED (Tree-Structured Edit Distance) that takes into account the specific characteristics of programming languages when computing the edit distance between ASTs. The authors also introduce a new dataset called CodeReuse for evaluating code similarity methods.

The TSED approach demonstrates improved performance compared to other state-of-the-art methods on the CodeReuse dataset, suggesting that it could be a valuable tool for a variety of applications, such as detecting code plagiarism, finding reusable code, and understanding code evolution. While the paper presents a compelling case for TSED, there are some potential limitations and areas for further research, such as exploring the generalizability of the approach, improving its interpretability, and investigating its computational efficiency and synergies with other code similarity techniques.

Overall, this work represents an important contribution to the field of code similarity evaluation and could have significant implications for developers, researchers, and others working with large codebases and complex software systems.