Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Karthik Sekar

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Evaluation of precision. Table 2 It is computed by calculating the overall No. of identified CCs by the No. of accurately detected CCs (predicted). Table 2 compares extant and CCCD-DL methods for identifying all clone variants.

Table 2 Evaluation of precision. Table 2 It is computed by calculating the overall No. of identified CCs by the No. of accurately detected CCs (predicted). Table 2 compares extant and CCCD-DL methods for identifying all clone variants.

Related Figures (10)

Fig. 2. Six kinds of caller-callee relationships among methods.
Fig. 2. Six kinds of caller-callee relationships among methods.
Fig. 3. Syntactic feature embedding.
Fig. 3. Syntactic feature embedding.
Fig. 4. Architecture of the deep fusion learning model.
Fig. 4. Architecture of the deep fusion learning model.
Fig. 5. Evaluation of accuracy.
Fig. 5. Evaluation of accuracy.
Fig. 6. Evaluation of precision. Fig. 7 displays the results of recall achieved for CCCD-DL and existing
Fig. 6. Evaluation of precision. Fig. 7 displays the results of recall achieved for CCCD-DL and existing
Evaluation of recall. Table 3 methods to detect the clone types. For the given dataset Apache Maven 3.8.3, Appache ant 1.10.12 and Opennlp-master 1.9.1, it is observed that the recall of the CCCD-DL model is 13.91%, 12.58%, and 14.78% (LV- CCD), 9.20%, 9.31% and 9.22% (FCCA), 5.59%, 6.22% and 5.10% (TBCNN) is increased than the existing method respectively. According to the analyzed outcomes, the CCCD-DL framework has a greater recall than the emerging technique.
Evaluation of recall. Table 3 methods to detect the clone types. For the given dataset Apache Maven 3.8.3, Appache ant 1.10.12 and Opennlp-master 1.9.1, it is observed that the recall of the CCCD-DL model is 13.91%, 12.58%, and 14.78% (LV- CCD), 9.20%, 9.31% and 9.22% (FCCA), 5.59%, 6.22% and 5.10% (TBCNN) is increased than the existing method respectively. According to the analyzed outcomes, the CCCD-DL framework has a greater recall than the emerging technique.
Comparison of LV-CC types. Table 5
Comparison of LV-CC types. Table 5
Comparison of Time (Processing) period and memory storage. Table 4
Comparison of Time (Processing) period and memory storage. Table 4
Fig. 7. Evaluation of recall.
Fig. 7. Evaluation of recall.
Related topics:
Software EngineeringArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved