Micheline Bénédicte Moumoula

Micheline Bénédicte Moumoula, Abdoul Kader Kabore, Jacques Klein et al.

With the involvement of multiple programming languages in modern software development, cross-lingual code clone detection has gained traction within the software engineering community. Numerous studies have explored this topic, proposing various promising approaches. Inspired by the significant advances in machine learning in recent years, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), which have demonstrated their ability to tackle various tasks, this paper revisits cross-lingual code clone detection. We evaluate the performance of five (05) LLMs and eight prompts (08) for the identification of cross-lingual code clones. Additionally, we compare these results against two baseline methods. Finally, we evaluate a pre-trained embedding model to assess the effectiveness of the generated representations for classifying clone and non-clone pairs. The studies involving LLMs and Embedding models are evaluated using two widely used cross-lingual datasets, XLCoST and CodeNet. Our results show that LLMs can achieve high F1 scores, up to 0.99, for straightforward programming examples. However, they not only perform less well on programs associated with complex programming challenges but also do not necessarily understand the meaning of "code clones" in a cross-lingual setting. We show that embedding models used to represent code fragments from different programming languages in the same representation space enable the training of a basic classifier that outperforms all LLMs by ~1 and ~20 percentage points on the XLCoST and CodeNet datasets, respectively. This finding suggests that, despite the apparent capabilities of LLMs, embeddings provided by embedding models offer suitable representations to achieve state-of-the-art performance in cross-lingual code clone detection.

Serge Lionel Nikiema, Albérick Euraste Djire, Abdoul Aziz Bonkoungou et al.

This research examines how well different methods measure semantic similarity, which is important for various software engineering applications such as code search, API recommendations, automated code reviews, and refactoring tools. While large language models are increasingly used for these similarity assessments, questions remain about whether they truly understand semantic relationships or merely recognize surface patterns. The study tested 18 different similarity measurement approaches, including word-based methods, embedding techniques, LLM-based systems, and structure-aware algorithms. The researchers created a systematic testing framework that applies controlled changes to text and code to evaluate how well each method handles different types of semantic relationships. The results revealed significant issues with commonly used metrics. Some embedding-based methods incorrectly identified semantic opposites as similar up to 99.9 percent of the time, while certain transformer-based approaches occasionally rated opposite meanings as more similar than synonymous ones. The study found that embedding methods' poor performance often stemmed from how they calculate distances; switching from Euclidean distance to cosine similarity improved results by 24 to 66 percent. LLM-based approaches performed better at distinguishing semantic differences, producing low similarity scores (0.00 to 0.29) for genuinely different meanings, compared to embedding methods that incorrectly assigned high scores (0.82 to 0.99) to dissimilar content.

Serge Lionel Nikiema, Jordan Samhi, Micheline Bénédicte Moumoula et al.

This research addresses a fundamental question in AI: whether large language models truly understand concepts or simply recognize patterns. The authors propose bidirectional reasoning,the ability to apply transformations in both directions without being explicitly trained on the reverse direction, as a test for genuine understanding. They argue that true comprehension should naturally allow reversibility. For example, a model that can change a variable name like userIndex to i should also be able to infer that i represents a user index without reverse training. The researchers tested current language models and discovered what they term cognitive specialization: when models are fine-tuned on forward tasks, their performance on those tasks improves, but their ability to reason bidirectionally becomes significantly worse. To address this issue, they developed Contrastive Fine-Tuning (CFT), which trains models using three types of examples: positive examples that maintain semantic meaning, negative examples with different semantics, and forward-direction obfuscation examples. This approach aims to develop deeper understanding rather than surface-level pattern recognition and allows reverse capabilities to develop naturally without explicit reverse training. Their experiments demonstrated that CFT successfully achieved bidirectional reasoning, enabling strong reverse performance while maintaining forward task capabilities. The authors conclude that bidirectional reasoning serves both as a theoretical framework for assessing genuine understanding and as a practical training approach for developing more capable AI systems.