Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Interactive Duplicate Search in Software Documentation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A pattern-based near-duplicate search algorithm for software documentation is proven complete: any true near duplicate of a chosen pattern always shares a guaranteed minimum overlap with some fragment in the output.

desk verdict A useful formalization and interactive process, but the completeness proof has a false lemma and an omitted proof, so the central guarantee is unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08266 v1 pith:NDYO3BNH submitted 2019-08-22 cs.SE cs.DS

D.V. Luciv , D.V. Koznov , A.A. Shelikhovskii , K.Yu. Romanovsky , G.A. Chernishev , A.N. Terekhov , D.A. Grigoriev , A.N. Smirnova
show 2 more authors
D.V. Borovkov A.I. Vasenina
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcs.DS
keywords nearduplicatesoftwaredocumentationpattern-basedsearcheditdistancelongestcommonsubsequencecompletenesstheoreminteractivedetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Software documentation is full of copy/paste duplicates, and maintaining them is a chore. The paper argues that near-duplicate search should not be fully automatic: a user picks a meaningful 'pattern' fragment, and an algorithm then finds every text fragment that is a near duplicate of that pattern. The central claim is a completeness guarantee: for any chosen similarity level $k > 1/\sqrt{3}$, the algorithm's output must contain, for every true near duplicate $g$, some fragment $w$ that overlaps $g$ in at least $\frac{|p|}{2}\left(3k - \frac{1}{k}\right)$ characters. If this holds, the interactive tool cannot silently miss a near duplicate, which would make duplicate management and documentation reuse practical on industrial documents.

What carries the argument

The paper's central object is the near-duplicate group (Definition 2): an ordered set of non-overlapping text fragments that all contain the same ordered collection of substrings, the archetype, whose total length is at least a fraction $k$ of each fragment. The algorithm works in three phases: a sliding window of length $|p|/k$ sweeps the document and keeps windows whose longest-common-subsequence edit distance to $p$ falls below a computed threshold (Lemmas 2 and 3 ensure every true near duplicate sits inside some kept window); a shrinking phase narrows each window to the subfragment closest to $p$; and a filtering phase removes duplicate and contained fragments. The completeness criterion is expressed through $O_{\min}(k) = \frac{|p|}{2}\left(3k - \frac{1}{k}\right)$, which increases with $k$ and becomes positive exactly when $k > 1/\sqrt{3}$. The proof runs through Lemmas 1–5; Lemma 4, the claim that shrinking preserves the criterion, is stated with its proof omitted.

What would settle it

Construct a small document containing a known near-duplicate group, run the algorithm, and check whether every $g$ in the group has some returned $w$ with $|g \cap w| \geq \frac{|p|}{2}\left(3k - \frac{1}{k}\right)$; a missed group falsifies Theorem 1. Since Lemma 4 is the unproved hinge, the decisive check is an exhaustive search over short strings for a case where shrinking discards the only fragment covering a near duplicate. A second, independent check compares the implemented edit-distance calculation with the true LCS distance on adversarial string pairs: any pair where the tool rejects a fragment that LCS distance would accept falsifies completeness for the implemented version.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a formal theorem: for any document $D$, pattern $p \in D$, similarity $k \in (1/\sqrt{3},\, 1]$, and any near-duplicate group $G$ of $p$ with similarity $k$, the three-phase pattern-based near-duplicate search algorithm returns a set $R$ such that every $g \in G$ has some $w \in R$ with $|g \cap w| \geq \frac{|p|}{2}\left(3k - \frac{1}{k}\right)$. This completeness criterion is a no-miss guarantee: the user will always find each true near duplicate in the output, possibly shifted or resized, because it must share a fixed minimum overlap with one of the returned fragments. The paper also claims the guarantee survives four of its five optimizations, and reports experiments on 19 industrial documents where the algorithm runs interactively and most outputs contain under 100 elements.

Load-bearing premise

The completeness theorem rests on Lemma 4, which asserts that the shrinking phase never destroys the overlap required by the criterion, and the paper explicitly omits that proof; a second load-bearing premise is that the edit-distance measure in the implemented tool matches the longest-common-subsequence distance used in the proofs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can trust that a near-duplicate search returns every true near duplicate for the chosen pattern and similarity, so manual review of the output is complete rather than a gamble.
  • Because $O_{\min}(k)$ grows with $k$, demanding stricter similarity ($k \geq 0.77$) guarantees each output/duplicate overlap exceeds half the pattern length, making results easier to recognize and validate by eye.
  • The preserved completeness under optimizations 1, 2, 4, and 5 means the performance improvements do not weaken the no-miss guarantee in practice; optimization 3 can occasionally break it, though rarely.
  • The complexity bound and experiments (90% of runs under two minutes, 84% of outputs under 100 elements) indicate that the interactive loop—choose pattern, search, edit results—is sustainable on documents up to a few megabytes.
  • A direct corollary of Lemma 1 is that all near duplicates of a pattern have lengths within a factor of $k$, so capping windows at $|p|/k$ is not ad hoc but a provable bound.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The proof skeleton—window containment via the triangle inequality plus a length-ratio bound—should generalize to other metric edit distances and to token-level alphabets, so the completeness argument may be portable beyond character-level LCS distance.
  • The experiments' observed overlaps exceed the pessimistic $O_{\min}(k)$ bound, so in practice the tool may miss far less than the theorem guarantees; quantifying that excess overlap on more document types would refine the bound.
  • Replacing the user's manual pattern pick with an automatic selection from the heat map's maximum-temperature region would test whether the completeness guarantee still yields meaningful groups without human guidance.
  • The proven guarantee covers false negatives, not false positives; measuring precision on the industrial corpus—how many returned fragments are meaningful near duplicates—is the natural next step the authors leave open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an interactive process for detecting near-duplicate fragments in software documentation. The workflow uses a heat map of exact duplicates to guide a user in selecting a meaningful pattern, then runs a three-phase pattern-based search algorithm whose output the user can edit. The main formal contribution is a definition of a near-duplicate group (Definition 2), a completeness criterion (Equation (2)), and Theorem 1, which claims that for every near duplicate g of pattern p with similarity k, the algorithm's output R contains a fragment w with |g ∩ w| ≥ O_min(k). The paper also describes five optimizations, gives complexity estimates, and reports runtime and output-size experiments on 19 industrial documents.

Significance. If the completeness theorem were valid, the paper would make a useful contribution: it gives a precise formal notion of near duplicate for documentation and a matching algorithm with a worst-case coverage guarantee, which is rare in this area. The interactive design and the use of a duplicate heat map are sensible, and the experimental corpus of real documents is a strength. However, the central proof is not currently sound: Lemma 2 is false as stated, Lemma 4 is explicitly unproved, and the gap between the proven algorithm and the evaluated implementation is not accounted for. These issues are load-bearing for the main claim, so the paper needs substantial revision before the contribution can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.2, Lemma 2] The proof of Lemma 2 uses the inequality |g| ≤ k|p|, attributing it to Lemma 1. Lemma 1 states k ≤ |g1|/|g2| ≤ 1/k, so with g2 = p it gives |g| ≥ k|p|, not |g| ≤ k|p|. The error is not cosmetic: the lemma itself is false. For k = 0.6, p = 0^60, and g = 1^24 0^36, the archetype 0^36 satisfies Definition 2 for p and g, but d(g,p) = 48, while (1 − k^2)|p| = 38.4. Since Lemma 3 uses Lemma 2 and Theorem 1 relies on Lemmas 3–5, the completeness theorem is not established by the submitted proof.
  2. [Section 6.2, Lemma 4] The proof of Lemma 4 is omitted, with the text stating 'We omit a formal proof due to its large size.' This lemma is load-bearing: phase 2 replaces each window w1 by a single shrunk fragment w2, and it is not obvious that the selected w2 preserves a sufficiently large intersection with every near duplicate contained in the original window. The main idea described in the paper (considering worst-case shrinkage to k|p| and corner positions) is not a proof. The completeness claim cannot be considered proven without a complete argument for this step.
  3. [Section 6.3 and Section 8] Optimization 3 is admitted to break completeness in Note 1, yet the experimental section does not state which optimizations were enabled during the reported runs. If Optimization 3 was active, the evaluated implementation is not the algorithm whose completeness is claimed in Theorem 1. Moreover, the experiments report only runtime and output size; there is no ground-truth evaluation of precision or recall. Consequently, the paper does not provide empirical evidence that near duplicates are not missed or that the output is usable beyond being small enough for manual inspection.
  4. [Section 3.1] The paper says the longest common subsequence distance is used in the proofs and in the algorithm, but the implementation relies on Python's difflib library. difflib's sequence matching is a heuristic and is not guaranteed to compute the exact longest common subsequence distance. This creates a gap between the formal model and the evaluated implementation; the completeness theorem applies only if the distance used in the implementation is exactly the one defined in Section 3.1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'a pattern-based, and the proof of its completeness' is grammatically incomplete; the contribution list needs rewording.
  2. [Introduction] There is a duplicated article in 'we present an an approach for interactive detection of near duplicates'.
  3. [Section 6.2, Lemma 2 proof] The proof refers to 'according to (2)' when deriving |A|/|p| ≥ k; the relevant statement is Definition 2, not the completeness criterion in Equation (2).
  4. [Section 7, Theorem 3] The complexity estimate in Theorem 3 is stated without proof ('We omit the proof due to its large volume'). If this is intended as a contribution, the proof should be supplied or the statement should be marked as conjectural.
  5. [Section 8] The text 'convertation' should be 'conversion'. Also, the conclusion that most near-duplicate groups are small follows only indirectly from the experiments, since the experiments measure output size rather than the size of user-validated near-duplicate groups.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: algorithm thresholds are derived from the formal definition, not fitted to the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The completeness criterion (Eq. 2) is defined independently of the algorithm output, and the proof of Theorem 1 proceeds through auxiliary Lemmas 1-5, which are stated and proven (or at least outlined) within the paper. The threshold k_di in Eq. (1) is not fitted from data or from the desired conclusion; it is obtained by applying the triangle inequality to the bound stated in Lemma 2, so that any window containing a near duplicate is guaranteed to pass the phase-1 test. The formal definition of a near duplicate (Def. 2) does not mention the algorithm or its output, so the completeness claim is not true by definition. The paper's self-citations (e.g., to its earlier near-duplicate definition in [16,37]) are contextual and not load-bearing: the definition is fully restated in the paper. Concerns raised by the skeptic (e.g., the apparent reversal of an inequality in the proof of Lemma 2 and the omitted proof of Lemma 4) are matters of mathematical correctness, not circularity; they do not indicate that any result was assumed through self-citation or that any prediction was constructed from its own inputs. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central completeness proof relies on the metric property of LCS distance and on the unverified equivalence between the theoretical distance and the difflib implementation. The near-duplicate definition itself is a modeling assumption about documentation duplicates.

free parameters (2)
  • similarity measure k = user-selected in (1/sqrt(3), 1]
    User chooses the similarity threshold interactively. The lower bound 1/sqrt(3) is selected for proof convenience and based on experiments showing lower values produce many false positives.
  • minimum exact-duplicate group length (four tokens) = 4 tokens
    Heat map generation ignores exact duplicate groups shorter than four tokens, chosen based on the authors' earlier experiments [15] to filter false positives.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math The longest common subsequence distance is a metric and satisfies the triangle inequality.
    Used in Lemma 3 proof; cited from Gusfield [31].
  • domain assumption The edit distance computed by the difflib library equals the theoretical LCS distance used in the proofs.
    Section 3.1 states difflib is used for edit distance; if difflib's heuristic similarity differs from exact LCS distance, the completeness proof may not apply to the implemented tool.
  • domain assumption Real near duplicates in software documentation conform to Definition 2, i.e., share a common archetype covering at least fraction k of each fragment.
    The completeness result is relative to this definition; if real duplicates do not share a contiguous common skeleton of this form, the guarantee does not apply.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interactive Duplicate Search in Software Documentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NDYO3BNH

@misc{pith2026190808266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interactive Duplicate Search in Software Documentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NDYO3BNH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08266}
}
read the original abstract

Various software features such as classes, methods, requirements, and tests often have similar functionality. This can lead to emergence of duplicates in their descriptive documentation. Uncontrolled duplicates created via copy/paste hinder the process of documentation maintenance. Therefore, the task of duplicate detection in software documentation is of importance. Solving it makes planned reuse possible, as well as creating and using templates for unification and automatic generation of documentation. In this paper, we present an interactive process for duplicate detection that involves the user in order to conduct meaningful search. It includes a new formal definition of a near duplicate, a pattern-based, and the proof of its completeness. Moreover, we demonstrate the results of experimenting on a collection of documents of several industrial projects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08266 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Process overview the process in detail. Generating a duplicate map. Using Clone Miner [20], all exact duplicate groups in the doc￾ument are detected. Every token (word) 𝑡 is as￾signed a color from an RGB interval from white to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Selecting a search pattern (PostgreSQL documentation) Near duplicate search. The user selects a sim￾ilarity measure for the highlighted fragment, which is a number from 1/ √ 3 to 1, and launches the pat￾tern matching algorithm2 . Forming a near duplicate group. Having re￾ceived the algorithm’s output, the user modifies it. During the process the user deletes elements (near duplicate occurences) that only resemble th… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Brooks, F. P. The Mythical Man-Month: Es- says on Software Engineering / F. P. Brooks. — Addison-Wesley, 1975

    work page 1975

  2. [2]

    Parnas, D. L. Precise Documentation: The Key to Better Software / D. L. Parnas // The Future of Software Engineering. — Berlin, Hei- delberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011. — P. 125–148

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Bassett, P. G. Framing Software Reuse: Lessons from the Real World / P. G. Bassett. — Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1997

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Research journey towards indus- trial application of reuse technique / S

    Jarzabek, S. Research journey towards indus- trial application of reuse technique / S. Jarz- abek, U. Pettersson // ICSE. — 2006. — P. 608–611

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    A systematic literature review of software requirements reuse approaches / M

    Irshad, M. A systematic literature review of software requirements reuse approaches / M. Irshad, K. Petersen, S. M. Poulding // In- formation & Software Technology. — 2018. — Vol. 93. — P. 223–245

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Tool Support for Crosscutting Con- cerns of API Documentation / M

    Horie, M. Tool Support for Crosscutting Con- cerns of API Documentation / M. Horie, S. Chiba // Proceedings of the 9th Interna- tional Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software D.V. Luciv, D.V. Koznov, A.A. Shelikhovskii et al. Development. — New York, NY, USA: ACM,

    work page

  7. [7]

    Oumaziz, M. A. Documentation Reuse: Hot or Not? An Empirical Study / M. A. Oumaziz, A. Charpentier, J.-R. Falleri, X. Blanc // Mastering Scale and Complexity in Software Reuse: 16th International Conference on Soft- ware Reuse. — Springer International Publish- ing, 2017. — P. 12–27

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Koznov, D. V. DocLine: A method for software product lines documentation development / D. V. Koznov, K. Yu. Romanovsky // Pro- gramming and Computer Software. — 2008. — Vol. 34, no. 4. — P. 216–224

    work page 2008

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Refactoring the Documen- tation of Software Product Lines / K

    Romanovsky, K. Refactoring the Documen- tation of Software Product Lines / K. Ro- manovsky, D. Koznov, L. Minchin // Lecture Notes in Computer Science. — Berlin, Heidel- berg: Springer-Verlag, 2011. — Vol. 4980. — P. 158–170

    2011

  2. [10]

    Documentation Reuse: Managing Similar Documents / S

    Jarzabek, S. Documentation Reuse: Managing Similar Documents / S. Jarzabek, D. Dan // FedCSIS. — 2017. — P. 1325–1334

    2017

  3. [11]

    Can clone detection support quality assessments of requirements speci- fications? / E

    Juergens, E. Can clone detection support quality assessments of requirements speci- fications? / E. Juergens, F. Deissenboeck, M. Feilkas, B. Hummel, B. Schaetz, S. Wag- ner, C. Domann, J. Streit // Proceedings of ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering....

    2010

  4. [12]

    Reusable software documenta- tion with phrase annotations / M

    Nosál’, M. Reusable software documenta- tion with phrase annotations / M. Nosál’, J. Porubän // Central European Journal of Computer Science. — 2014. — Vol. 4, no. 4. — P. 242–258

    2014

  5. [13]

    Preliminary report on empirical study of repeated fragments in internal doc- umentation / M

    Nosál’, M. Preliminary report on empirical study of repeated fragments in internal doc- umentation / M. Nosál’, J. Porubän // Pro- ceedings of Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems. — 2016. — P. 1573–1576

    2016

  6. [14]

    Analysis and visualization of information quality of technical documenta- tion / A

    Wingkvist, A. Analysis and visualization of information quality of technical documenta- tion / A. Wingkvist, W. Lowe, M. Ericsson, R. Lincke // Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Information Management and Evaluation. — 2010. — P. 388–396

    2010

  7. [15]

    Clone Detection in Reuse of Soft- ware Technical Documentation / D

    Koznov, D. Clone Detection in Reuse of Soft- ware Technical Documentation / D. Koznov, D. Luciv, H. A. Basit, O. E. Lieh, M. Smirnov // International Andrei Ershov Memorial Conference on Perspectives of Sys- tem Informatics (2015). — Springer Nature,

    2015

  8. [16]

    Luciv, D. V. Detecting Near Duplicates In Software Documentation / D. V. Lu- civ, D. V. Koznov, G. A. Chernishev, A. N. Terekhov, K. Yu. Romanovsky, D. A. Grigoriev // Programming and Computer Software. — 2018. — Vol. 44, no. 5

    2018

  9. [17]

    Koznov, D. V. Duplicate management in software documentation maintenance / D. V. Koznov, D. V. Luciv, G. A. Cherni- shev // Proceedings of V International conference Actual problems of system and software engineering. — Vol. 1989. — CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2017. — P. 195–201

    1989

  10. [18]

    — URL: http: //www.math.spbu.ru/user/kromanovsky/ docline/index.html

    Duplicate Finder. — URL: http: //www.math.spbu.ru/user/kromanovsky/ docline/index.html

  11. [19]

    Luciv, D. V. Poster: Duplicate Finder Toolkit / D. V. Luciv, D. V. Koznov, G. A. Chernishev, H. A. Basit, K. Yu. Ro- manovsky, A. N. Terekhov // Proceedings of the International Conference on Software En- gineering (ICSE 2018). — 2018. — P. 171–172

    2018

  12. [20]

    Basit, H. A. Efficient Token Based Clone De- tection with Flexible Tokenization / H. A. Ba- sit, S. J. Puglisi, W. F. Smyth, A. Turpin, S. Jarzabek // Proceedings of the 6th Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Sympo- sium on the Founda...

    2007

  13. [21]

    Identifying duplicate functionality in textual use cases by aligning semantic actions / A

    Rago, A. Identifying duplicate functionality in textual use cases by aligning semantic actions / A. Rago, C. Marcos, J. A. Diaz-Pace // Soft- ware & Systems Modeling. — 2016. — Vol. 15, no. 2. — P. 579–603

    2016

  14. [22]

    Finding approximate patterns in strings / E

    Ukkonen, E. Finding approximate patterns in strings / E. Ukkonen // Journal of Algorithms. — 1985. — Vol. 6, no. 1. — P. 132–137. Interactive Duplicate Search in Software Documentation

    1985

  15. [23]

    Broder, A. Z. On the resemblance and contain- ment of documents / A. Z. Broder // Compres- sion and Complexity of Sequences 1997. Pro- ceedings. — IEEE, 1997. — P. 21–29

    1997

  16. [24]

    Fast Text Searching: Allowing Errors / S

    Wu, S. Fast Text Searching: Allowing Errors / S. Wu, U. Manber // Commun. ACM. — 1992. — Vol. 35, no. 10. — P. 83–91

    1992

  17. [25]

    Landau, G. M. Fast string matching with k dif- ferences/G.M.Landau, U.Vishkin//Journal of Computer and System Sciences. — 1988. — Vol. 37, no. 1. — P. 63–78

    1988

  18. [26]

    A Fast Bit-vector Algorithm for Ap- proximate String Matching Based on Dynamic Programming / G

    Myers, G. A Fast Bit-vector Algorithm for Ap- proximate String Matching Based on Dynamic Programming / G. Myers // J. ACM. — 1999. — Vol. 46, no. 3. — P. 395–415

    1999

  19. [27]

    Binary codes capable of cor- recting spurious insertions and deletions of ones / V

    Levenshtein, V. Binary codes capable of cor- recting spurious insertions and deletions of ones / V. Levenshtein // Problems of Infor- mation Transmission. — 1965. — Vol. 1. — P. 8–17

    1965

  20. [28]

    Computing Patterns in Strings / W.Smyth.— Addison-Wesley, 2003.— P.423

    Smyth, W. Computing Patterns in Strings / W.Smyth.— Addison-Wesley, 2003.— P.423

    2003

  21. [29]

    A survey of longest common sub- sequence algorithms / L

    Bergroth, L. A survey of longest common sub- sequence algorithms / L. Bergroth, H. Hako- nen, T. Raita // String Processing and Infor- mation Retrieval, 2000. SPIRE 2000. Proceed- ings. Seventh International Symposium on. —

    2000

  22. [30]

    Mining of massive datasets / J

    Leskovec, J. Mining of massive datasets / J. Leskovec, A. Rajaraman, J. D. Ullman. — Cambridge university press, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Algorithms on Strings, Trees, and Sequences / D

    Gusfield, D. Algorithms on Strings, Trees, and Sequences / D. Gusfield. — Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1997

    1997

  24. [32]

    Ratcliff, J. W. Pattern Matching: The Gestalt Approach / J. W. Ratcliff, D. E. Metzener // Dr. Dobb’s Journal. — 1988. — Vol. 13, no. 7. — P. 46–72

    1988

  25. [33]

    Ab- boud, A

    Abboud,A.TighthardnessresultsforLCSand other sequence similarity measures / A. Ab- boud, A. Backurs, V. V. Williams // Founda- tions of Computer Science (FOCS), 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on. — 2015. — P. 59– 78

    2015

  26. [34]

    — URL: https:// docs.python.org/3/library/difflib.html

    Python DiffLib module. — URL: https:// docs.python.org/3/library/difflib.html

  27. [35]

    Abouelhoda, M. I. Replacing Suffix Trees with Enhanced Suffix Arrays / M. I. Abouelhoda, S. Kurtz, E. Ohlebusch // J. of Discrete Algo- rithms. — 2004. — Vol. 2, no. 1. — P. 53–86

    2004

  28. [36]

    Visualization of eye gaze data using heat maps / O

    Špakov, O. Visualization of eye gaze data using heat maps / O. Špakov, D. Miniotas // Elek- tronikairelektrotechnika.— 2007.— P.55–58

    2007

  29. [37]

    Luciv,D.V.DetectingNearDuplicatesinSoft- ware Documentation. — 2017. — arXiv : 1711.04705

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A fast string searching algo- rithm / Robert S

    Boyer, Robert S. A fast string searching algo- rithm / Robert S. Boyer, J. Strother Moore // Communications of the ACM. — 1977. — Vol. 20, no. 10. — P. 762–772

    1977

  31. [39]

    — URL: https://pandoc.org/

    Pandoc: a universal document converter. — URL: https://pandoc.org/

  32. [40]

    Drobintsev, P. D. A formal approach to test scenarios generation based on guides / P. D. Drobintsev, V. P. Kotl- yarov, A. A. Letichevsky // Automatic Control and Computer Sciences. — 2014. — Dec. — Vol. 48, no. 7. — P. 415–423

    2014

  33. [41]

    Pakulin, N. V. Model-based testing of Inter- net Mail Protocols / N. V. Pakulin, A. N. Tu- gaenko // Proceedings of the Institute for Sys- tem Programming. — 2011. — Vol. 20. — P. 125–141

    2011

  34. [42]

    To a Method of Evaluating ontolo- gies / V.A.Gorovoy E.S.Bolotnikova, T.A.Gavrilova // Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences International

    E.S.Bolotnikova, T.A.Gavrilova V.A.Gorovoy. To a Method of Evaluating ontolo- gies / V.A.Gorovoy E.S.Bolotnikova, T.A.Gavrilova // Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences International. — 2011. — Vol. 50, no. 3. — P. 448–461

    2011

  35. [2016]

    9609 ofLecture Notes in Com- puter Science

    — Vol. 9609 ofLecture Notes in Com- puter Science. — P. 170–185

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.