A Unified Model for Cross-Domain Clone Detection via Model Merging

The growing diversity of code clone types, from syntactic copies to cross-language semantic clones to AI-generated duplicates, has created a fragmentation crisis in clone detection. Current deep learning detectors are domain specialists that degrade significantly outside their training distribution, with F1 drops exceeding 70% across domains. Deploying multiple specialized models is impractical, yet training a single cross-domain detector requires simultaneous access to all training data. To address this, we investigate model merging, a family of post-hoc techniques that operate solely on trained checkpoints. We evaluate parameter merging with five task-vector methods, architecture merging via greedy layer stitching, and cross-tokenizer alignment across four code models, three benchmarks, and twelve configurations. Same-base TIES merging creates effective cross-domain detectors, validated across two model families and three random seeds, reaching 0.865 combined F1 on UniXcoder, 93% of multi-task performance without any training data at the merging step. WUDI achieves the highest in-distribution combined F1 at 0.899, but TIES generalizes better to unseen AI-generated clones, making it our recommended method. Cross-base merging yields only marginal and high-variance gains across all five methods, indicating that task vector compatibility through a shared pre-trained base is the binding factor for effective merging. Merged detectors also outperform zero-shot code LLMs on GPTCloneBench at lower inference cost and generalize up to 4x better than multi-task training to unseen AI-generated clones, suggesting a trade-off between in-domain performance and OOD robustness. This work provides one of the first systematic empirical studies of model merging for software engineering and a practical recipe for building cross-domain clone detectors.

TypeProbe: Recovering Type Representations from Hidden States of Pre-trained Code Models

State-of-the-art code models achieve impressive performance, yet the extent to which they internally encode type information remains poorly understood. We probe the residual streams of pretrained code models for internal type representations using a parallel dataset of Java and Python code examples. Our results show that cross-lingual type representations emerge even from untyped code. Moreover, we test whether hidden states linearly encode the result type implied by typed function application by training probes on one language to infer argument and result types in the other. Finally, we find that this structure is partly robust to lexical perturbations and cross-language syntactic variations. To the best of our knowledge, prior work on interpretability of code models has not directly targeted formal type semantics or cross-lingual type representations. We release our code and datasets.

Falsification, Not Exposure: An Internally Preregistered Placebo-Controlled Decomposition of Self-Repair Feedback in Frozen Small Code Models

In deployment settings where retraining is infeasible, small frozen code models are routinely asked to repair a failed program after seeing their own failing output, usually treated as a retry mechanism. From a Popperian view, a generated program is a conjecture and a test-execution violation is an oracle-relative, executable counterexample, so feedback's value should be attributed not to re-exposure to failing code but to whether the conjecture is opened to external, executable criticism. As the third stage of a falsification-centered measurement program, this study builds a placebo-controlled instrument that decomposes the feedback packet against a blind-resampling baseline at matched output-generation budget and against content-free, shape-matched placebos. The contribution is not a new repair algorithm but a reflexive methodology (packet decomposition, placebo mirroring, matched-budget discordant-pair tests, fresh-generation confirmation, executable audits) that makes both the model's program conjecture and the researcher's "feedback content works" claim falsifiable. Across six HumanEval+/MBPP+ cells with three 0.5B-1.5B frozen models, 290 dead task-cell units (no best-of-8 candidate passing the public tier) were evaluated; the main run produced 7,000 fresh generations and a preregistered follow-up 1,400 more. Blind resampling exceeded bare-code retry by +18 net unlocks (25/7, Holm p=0.0021). Code-plus-facts recovered +18 over bare code (21/3, p=0.00042) and +15 over a generic-bullet placebo (p=0.0041). An instruction-only effect was not distinguishable (+3, p=0.36). Code-plus-facts and blind resampling tied at 26 unlocks each (not equivalence). Six external-controller follow-ups tied a content-free shape placebo. In this regime, falsification helped not as vocabulary or self-critique, but as comparison with external, executable counterexamples.