The Struggles of LLMs in Cross-lingual Code Clone Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Aug 2024.
Builds on
14 of 46 references.
References · 14
- 2024StarCoder 2 and The Stack v2: The Next Generationcited by 484
- 2022UniXcoder: Unified Cross-Modal Pre-training for Code Representationcited by 355
- 2024CRUXEval: A Benchmark for Code Reasoning, Understanding and Executioncited by 294
- 2021CodeNet: A Large-Scale AI for Code Dataset for Learning a Diversity of Coding Taskscited by 199
- 2020Detecting Code Clones with Graph Neural Networkand Flow-Augmented Abstract Syntax Treecited by 68
- 2024Should We Respect LLMs? A Cross-Lingual Study on the Influence of Prompt Politeness on LLM Performancecited by 41
- 2015SourcererCC: Scaling Code Clone Detection to Big Codecited by 40
- 2018Oreo: Detection of Clones in the Twilight Zonecited by 19
- 2023Towards Understanding the Capability of Large Language Models on Code Clone Detection: A Surveycited by 14
- 2017Do Code Clones Matter?cited by 12
- 2024Investigating the Efficacy of Large Language Models for Code Clone Detectioncited by 7
- 2023CCT-Code: Cross-Consistency Training for Multilingual Clone Detection and Code Searchcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
3 papers.