CompiLIG at SemEval-2017 Task 1: Cross-Language Plagiarism Detection Methods for Semantic Textual Similarity

We present our submitted systems for Semantic Textual Similarity (STS) Track 4 at SemEval-2017. Given a pair of Spanish-English sentences, each system must estimate their semantic similarity by a score between 0 and 5. In our submission, we use syntax-based, dictionary-based, context-based, and MT-based methods. We also combine these methods in unsupervised and supervised way. Our best run ranked 1st on track 4a with a correlation of 83.02% with human annotations

SemEval-2017 Task 1: semantic textual similarity - multilingual and cross-lingual focused evaluation

Semantic Textual Similarity (STS) measures the meaning similarity of sentences. Applications include machine translation (MT), summarization, generation, question answering (QA), short answer grading, semantic search, dialog and conversational systems. The STS shared task is a venue for assessing the current state-of-the-art. The 2017 task focuses on multilingual and cross-lingual pairs with one sub-track exploring MT quality estimation (MTQE) data. The task obtained strong participation from 31 teams, with 17 participating in all language tracks. We summarize performance and review a selection of well performing methods. Analysis highlights common errors, providing insight into the limitations of existing models. To support ongoing work on semantic representations, the STS Benchmark is introduced as a new shared training and evaluation set carefully selected from the corpus of English STS shared task data (2012-2017)

Didactic evolution of similarity detection software : the example of Compilatio

Since 2005, Compilatio has been offering tools to help detect and prevent plagiarism. Users of similarity detection software were initially attracted by the ability to track down cheaters. They are now more aware of the tools and services offered to create an environment that encourages the adoption of integrity and citizenship values, especially digital ones. They are aware that plagiarism is not a passing evil to be eradicated, but a deep-seated temptation that each individual must learn to overcome. The technology used to help teachers spot cheating has also evolved. The approach was initially syntactic, comparing texts formally to detect similarities. It then became semantic, using so-called artificial intelligence techniques to find similarities between different words with the same meaning. The issues related to plagiarism prevention illustrate how technology and pedagogy can be used together to train individuals for their future professional and civic life

On the use of word embedding for cross language plagiarism detection

[EN] Cross language plagiarism is the unacknowledged reuse of text across language pairs. It occurs if a passage of text is translated from source language to target language and no proper citation is provided. Although various methods have been developed for detection of cross language plagiarism, less attention has been paid to measure and compare their performance, especially when tackling with different types of paraphrasing through translation. In this paper, we investigate various approaches to cross language plagiarism detection. Moreover, we present a novel approach to cross language plagiarism detection using word embedding methods and explore its performance against other state-of-the-art plagiarism detection algorithms. In order to evaluate the methods, we have constructed an English-Persian bilingual plagiarism detection corpus (referred to as HAMTA-CL) comprised of seven types of obfuscation. The results show that the word embedding approach outperforms the other approaches with respect to recall when encountering heavily paraphrased passages. On the other hand, translation based approach performs well when the precision is the main consideration of the cross language plagiarism detection system.Asghari, H.; Fatemi, O.; Mohtaj, S.; Faili, H.; Rosso, P. (2019). On the use of word embedding for cross language plagiarism detection. Intelligent Data Analysis. 23(3):661-680. https://doi.org/10.3233/IDA-183985S661680233H. Asghari, K. Khoshnava, O. Fatemi and H. Faili, Developing bilingual plagiarism detection corpus using sentence aligned parallel corpus: Notebook for {PAN} at {CLEF} 2015, In L. Cappellato, N. Ferro, G.J.F. Jones and E. SanJuan, editors, Working Notes of {CLEF} 2015 – Conference and Labs of the Evaluation forum, Toulouse, France, September 8–11, 2015, volume 1391 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2015.A. Barrón-Cede no, M. Potthast, P. Rosso and B. Stein, Corpus and evaluation measures for automatic plagiarism detection, In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, M. Rosner and D. Tapias, editors, Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, {LREC} 2010, 17–23 May 2010, Valletta, Malta. European Language Resources Association, 2010.A. Barrón-Cede no, P. Rosso, D. Pinto and A. Juan, On cross-lingual plagiarism analysis using a statistical model, In B. Stein, E. Stamatatos and M. Koppel, editors, Proceedings of the ECAI’08 Workshop on Uncovering Plagiarism, Authorship and Social Software Misuse, Patras, Greece, July 22, 2008, volume 377 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2008.Farghaly, A., & Shaalan, K. (2009). Arabic Natural Language Processing. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing, 8(4), 1-22. doi:10.1145/1644879.1644881J. Ferrero, F. Agnès, L. Besacier and D. Schwab, A multilingual, multi-style and multi-granularity dataset for cross-language textual similarity detection, In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, M. Grobelnik, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, A. Moreno, J. Odijk and S. Piperidis, editors, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation {LREC} 2016, Portorož, Slovenia, May 23–28, 2016, European Language Resources Association {(ELRA)}, 2016.Franco-Salvador, M., Gupta, P., Rosso, P., & Banchs, R. E. (2016). Cross-language plagiarism detection over continuous-space- and knowledge graph-based representations of language. Knowledge-Based Systems, 111, 87-99. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2016.08.004Franco-Salvador, M., Rosso, P., & Montes-y-Gómez, M. (2016). A systematic study of knowledge graph analysis for cross-language plagiarism detection. Information Processing & Management, 52(4), 550-570. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2015.12.004C.K. Kent and N. Salim, Web based cross language plagiarism detection, CoRR, abs/0912.3, 2009.McNamee, P., & Mayfield, J. (2004). Character N-Gram Tokenization for European Language Text Retrieval. Information Retrieval, 7(1/2), 73-97. doi:10.1023/b:inrt.0000009441.78971.beT. Mikolov, K. Chen, G. Corrado and J. Dean, Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space, CoRR, abs/1301.3, 2013.S. Mohtaj, B. Roshanfekr, A. Zafarian and H. Asghari, Parsivar: A language processing toolkit for persian, In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, C. Cieri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, K. Hasida, H. Isahara, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis and T. Tokunaga, editors, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2018, Miyazaki, Japan, May 7–12, 2018, European Language Resources Association ELRA, 2018.R.M.A. Nawab, M. Stevenson and P.D. Clough, University of Sheffield – Lab Report for {PAN} at {CLEF} 2010, In M. Braschler, D. Harman and E. Pianta, editors, {CLEF} 2010 LABs and Workshops, Notebook Papers, 22–23 September 2010, Padua, Italy, volume 1176 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2010.G. Oberreuter, G. L’Huillier, S.A. Rios and J.D. Velásquez, Approaches for intrinsic and external plagiarism detection – Notebook for {PAN} at {CLEF} 2011, In V. Petras, P. Forner and P.D. Clough, editors, {CLEF} 2011 Labs and Workshop, Notebook Papers, 19–22 September 2011, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, volume 1177 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2011.Pinto, D., Civera, J., Barrón-Cedeño, A., Juan, A., & Rosso, P. (2009). A statistical approach to crosslingual natural language tasks. Journal of Algorithms, 64(1), 51-60. doi:10.1016/j.jalgor.2009.02.005M. Potthast, A. Barrón-Cede no, A. Eiselt, B. Stein and P. Rosso, Overview of the 2nd international competition on plagiarism detection, In M. Braschler, D. Harman and E. Pianta, editors, {CLEF} 2010 LABs and Workshops, Notebook Papers, 22–23 September 2010, Padua, Italy, volume 1176 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2010.Potthast, M., Barrón-Cedeño, A., Stein, B., & Rosso, P. (2010). Cross-language plagiarism detection. Language Resources and Evaluation, 45(1), 45-62. doi:10.1007/s10579-009-9114-zM. Potthast, A. Eiselt, A. Barrón-Cede no, B. Stein and P. Rosso, Overview of the 3rd international competition on plagiarism detection, In V. Petras, P. Forner and P.D. Clough, editors, {CLEF} 2011 Labs and Workshop, Notebook Papers, 19–22 September 2011, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, volume 1177 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2011.M. Potthast, S. Goering, P. Rosso and B. Stein, Towards data submissions for shared tasks: First experiences for the task of text alignment, In L. Cappellato, N. Ferro, G.J.F. Jones and E. SanJuan, editors, Working Notes of {CLEF} 2015 – Conference and Labs of the Evaluation forum, Toulouse, France, September 8–11, 2015, volume 1391 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2015.Potthast, M., Stein, B., & Anderka, M. (s. f.). A Wikipedia-Based Multilingual Retrieval Model. Advances in Information Retrieval, 522-530. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78646-7_51B. Pouliquen, R. Steinberger and C. Ignat, Automatic identification of document translations in large multilingual document collections, CoRR, abs/cs/060, 2006.B. Stein, E. Stamatatos and M. Koppel, Proceedings of the ECAI’08 Workshop on Uncovering Plagiarism, Authorship and Social Software Misuse, Patras, Greece, July 22, 2008, volume 377 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2008.J. Wieting, M. Bansal, K. Gimpel and K. Livescu, Towards universal paraphrastic sentence embeddings, CoRR, abs/1511.0, 2015.V. Zarrabi, J. Rafiei, K. Khoshnava, H. Asghari and S. Mohtaj, Evaluation of text reuse corpora for text alignment task of plagiarism detection, In L. Cappellato, N. Ferro, G.J.F. Jones and E. SanJuan, editors, Working Notes of {CLEF} 2015 – Conference and Labs of the Evaluation forum, Toulouse, France, September 8–11, 2015, volume 1391 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2015.Barrón-Cedeño, A., Gupta, P., & Rosso, P. (2013). Methods for cross-language plagiarism detection. Knowledge-Based Systems, 50, 211-217. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2013.06.01

Integrating State-of-the-art NLP Tools into Existing Methods to Address Current Challenges in Plagiarism Detection

Paraphrase plagiarism occurs when text is deliberately obfuscated to evade detection, deliberate alteration increases the complexity of plagiarism and the difficulty in detecting paraphrase plagiarism. In paraphrase plagiarism, copied texts often contain little or no matching words, and conventional plagiarism detectors, most of which are designed to detect matching stings are ineffective under such condition. The problem of plagiarism detection has been widely researched in recent years with significant progress made particularly in the platform of Pan@Clef competition on plagiarism detection. However further research is required specifically in the area of paraphrase and translation (obfuscation) plagiarism detection as studies show that the state-of-the-art is unsatisfactory. A rational solution to the problem is to apply models that detect plagiarism using semantic features in texts, rather than matching strings. Deep contextualised learning models (DCLMs) have the ability to learn deep textual features that can be used to compare text for semantic similarity. They have been remarkably effective in many natural language processing (NLP) tasks, but have not yet been tested in paraphrase plagiarism detection. The second problem facing conventional plagiarism detection is translation plagiarism, which occurs when copied text is translated to a different language and sometimes paraphrased and used without acknowledging the original sources. The most common method used for detecting cross-lingual plagiarism (CLP) require internet translation services, which is limiting to the detection process in many ways. A rational solution to the problem is to use detection models that do not utilise internet translation services. In this thesis we addressed these ongoing challenges facing conventional plagiarism detection by applying some of the most advanced methods in NLP, which includes contextualised and non-contextualised deep learning models. To address the problem of paraphrased plagiarism, we proposed a novel paraphrase plagiarism detector that integrates deep contextualised learning (DCL) into a generic plagiarism detection framework. Evaluation results revealed that our proposed paraphrase detector outperformed a state-of-art model, and a number of standard baselines in the task of paraphrase plagiarism detection. With respect to CLP detection, we propose a novel multilingual translation model (MTM) based on the Word2Vec (word embedding) model that can effectively translate text across a number of languages, it is independent of the internet and performs comparably, and in many cases better than a common cross-lingual plagiarism detection model that rely on online machine translator. The MTM does not require parallel or comparable corpora, it is therefore designed to resolve the problem of CLPD in low resource languages. The solutions provided in this research advance the state-of-the-art and contribute to the existing body of knowledge in plagiarism detection, and would also have a positive impact on academic integrity that has been under threat for a while by plagiarism

Academic integrity : a call to research and action

Originally published in French:L'urgence de l'intégrité académique, Éditions EMS, Management & société, Caen, 2021 (ISBN 978-2-37687-472-0).The urgency of doing complements the urgency of knowing. Urgency here is not the inconsequential injunction of irrational immediacy. It arises in various contexts for good reasons, when there is a threat to the human existence and harms to others. Today, our knowledge based civilization is at risk both by new production models of knowledge and by the shamelessness of knowledge delinquents, exposing the greatest number to important risks. Swiftly, the editors respond to the diagnostic by setting up a reference tool for academic integrity. Across multiple dialogues between the twenty-five chapters and five major themes, the ethical response shapes pragmatic horizons for action, on a range of disciplinary competencies: from science to international diplomacy. An interdisciplinary work indispensable for teachers, students and university researchers and administrators