{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01471861471861472, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025974025974025974, 'mean_word_length': 4.751243781094527, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparative Study of Clone Detection Approaches

Code resemblance or taking a fragment of code from any place and then regenerate it by writing the same either without or with any alteration is termed as code cloning. It is also called as Duplicate code. Most of the studies show that about 5% to 20% of a software system contains cloned code, this is just the outcome of mimeographing the existing fragments of code. One of the most impediment problem of such copied fragments of code is that all the code chunks need to be checked for the same bug reported in the original chunk. In software maintainance, the other prime concern is code refractoring. The state of the art is explored in clone detection. Firstly, we define the terms used in respect to clone detection and its literature and also specify there correlative mappings for the oftenly used type of clone. Secondly, the review of existing detection approaches, clone taxanomies and experimental evaluations of clone detection tools is provided. How clone detection applications when explored, could be beneficial to other areas of software engineering is also presented here in this paper.