Experiments to investigate the utility of nearest neighbour metrics based on linguistically informed features for detecting textual plagiarism

Plagiarism detection is a challenge for linguistic models — most current implemented models use simple occurrence statistics for linguistic items. In this paper we report two experiments related to plagiarism detection where we use a model for distributional semantics and of sentence stylistics to compare sentence by sentence the likelihood of a text being partly plagiarised. The result of the comparison are displayed for visual inspection by a plagiarism assessor

A Decade of Shared Tasks in Digital Text Forensics at PAN

[EN] Digital text forensics aims at examining the originality and credibility of information in electronic documents and, in this regard, to extract and analyze information about the authors of these documents. The research field has been substantially developed during the last decade. PAN is a series of shared tasks that started in 2009 and significantly contributed to attract the attention of the research community in well-defined digital text forensics tasks. Several benchmark datasets have been developed to assess the state-of-the-art performance in a wide range of tasks. In this paper, we present the evolution of both the examined tasks and the developed datasets during the last decade. We also briefly introduce the upcoming PAN 2019 shared tasks.We are indebted to many colleagues and friends who contributed greatly to PAN's tasks: Maik Anderka, Shlomo Argamon, Alberto Barrón-Cedeño, Fabio Celli, Fabio Crestani, Walter Daelemans, Andreas Eiselt, Tim Gollub, Parth Gupta, Matthias Hagen, Teresa Holfeld, Patrick Juola, Giacomo Inches, Mike Kestemont, Moshe Koppel, Manuel Montes-y-Gómez, Aurelio Lopez-Lopez, Francisco Rangel, Miguel Angel Sánchez-Pérez, Günther Specht, Michael Tschuggnall, and Ben Verhoeven. Our special thanks go to PAN¿s sponsors throughout the years and not least to the hundreds of participants.Potthast, M.; Rosso, P.; Stamatatos, E.; Stein, B. (2019). A Decade of Shared Tasks in Digital Text Forensics at PAN. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 11438:291-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15719-7_39S2913001143

Plagiarism Detection: Keeping Check on Misuse of Intellectual Property

Today, Plagiarism has become a menace. Every journal editor or conference organizers has to deal with this problem. Simply Copying or rephrasing of text without giving due credit to the original author has become more common. This is considered to be an Intellectual Property Theft. We are developing a Plagiarism Detection Tool which would deal with this problem. In this paper we discuss the common tools available to detect plagiarism and their short comings and the advantages of our tool over these tools

A study on plagiarism detection and plagiarism direction identification using natural language processing techniques

Ever since we entered the digital communication era, the ease of information sharing through the internet has encouraged online literature searching. With this comes the potential risk of a rise in academic misconduct and intellectual property theft. As concerns over plagiarism grow, more attention has been directed towards automatic plagiarism detection. This is a computational approach which assists humans in judging whether pieces of texts are plagiarised. However, most existing plagiarism detection approaches are limited to super cial, brute-force stringmatching techniques. If the text has undergone substantial semantic and syntactic changes, string-matching approaches do not perform well. In order to identify such changes, linguistic techniques which are able to perform a deeper analysis of the text are needed. To date, very limited research has been conducted on the topic of utilising linguistic techniques in plagiarism detection. This thesis provides novel perspectives on plagiarism detection and plagiarism direction identi cation tasks. The hypothesis is that original texts and rewritten texts exhibit signi cant but measurable di erences, and that these di erences can be captured through statistical and linguistic indicators. To investigate this hypothesis, four main research objectives are de ned. First, a novel framework for plagiarism detection is proposed. It involves the use of Natural Language Processing techniques, rather than only relying on the vii traditional string-matching approaches. The objective is to investigate and evaluate the in uence of text pre-processing, and statistical, shallow and deep linguistic techniques using a corpus-based approach. This is achieved by evaluating the techniques in two main experimental settings. Second, the role of machine learning in this novel framework is investigated. The objective is to determine whether the application of machine learning in the plagiarism detection task is helpful. This is achieved by comparing a thresholdsetting approach against a supervised machine learning classi er. Third, the prospect of applying the proposed framework in a large-scale scenario is explored. The objective is to investigate the scalability of the proposed framework and algorithms. This is achieved by experimenting with a large-scale corpus in three stages. The rst two stages are based on longer text lengths and the nal stage is based on segments of texts. Finally, the plagiarism direction identi cation problem is explored as supervised machine learning classi cation and ranking tasks. Statistical and linguistic features are investigated individually or in various combinations. The objective is to introduce a new perspective on the traditional brute-force pair-wise comparison of texts. Instead of comparing original texts against rewritten texts, features are drawn based on traits of texts to build a pattern for original and rewritten texts. Thus, the classi cation or ranking task is to t a piece of text into a pattern. The framework is tested by empirical experiments, and the results from initial experiments show that deep linguistic analysis contributes to solving the problems we address in this thesis. Further experiments show that combining shallow and viii deep techniques helps improve the classi cation of plagiarised texts by reducing the number of false negatives. In addition, the experiment on plagiarism direction detection shows that rewritten texts can be identi ed by statistical and linguistic traits. The conclusions of this study o er ideas for further research directions and potential applications to tackle the challenges that lie ahead in detecting text reuse.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Plagiarism detection for Indonesian texts

As plagiarism becomes an increasing concern for Indonesian universities and research centers, the need of using automatic plagiarism checker is becoming more real. However, researches on Plagiarism Detection Systems (PDS) in Indonesian documents have not been well developed, since most of them deal with detecting duplicate or near-duplicate documents, have not addressed the problem of retrieving source documents, or show tendency to measure document similarity globally. Therefore, systems resulted from these researches are incapable of referring to exact locations of ``similar passage'' pairs. Besides, there has been no public and standard corpora available to evaluate PDS in Indonesian texts. To address the weaknesses of former researches, this thesis develops a plagiarism detection system which executes various methods of plagiarism detection stages in a workflow system. In retrieval stage, a novel document feature coined as phraseword is introduced and executed along with word unigram and character n-grams to address the problem of retrieving source documents, whose contents are copied partially or obfuscated in a suspicious document. The detection stage, which exploits a two-step paragraph-based comparison, is aimed to address the problems of detecting and locating source-obfuscated passage pairs. The seeds for matching source-obfuscated passage pairs are based on locally-weighted significant terms to capture paraphrased and summarized passages. In addition to this system, an evaluation corpus was created through simulation by human writers, and by algorithmic random generation. Using this corpus, the performance evaluation of the proposed methods was performed in three scenarios. On the first scenario which evaluated source retrieval performance, some methods using phraseword and token features were able to achieve the optimum recall rate 1. On the second scenario which evaluated detection performance, our system was compared to Alvi's algorithm and evaluated in 4 levels of measures: character, passage, document, and cases. The experiment results showed that methods resulted from using token as seeds have higher scores than Alvi's algorithm in all 4 levels of measures both in artificial and simulated plagiarism cases. In case detection, our systems outperform Alvi's algorithm in recognizing copied, shaked, and paraphrased passages. However, Alvi's recognition rate on summarized passage is insignificantly higher than our system. The same tendency of experiment results were demonstrated on the third experiment scenario, only the precision rates of Alvi's algorithm in character and paragraph levels are higher than our system. The higher Plagdet scores produced by some methods in our system than Alvi's scores show that this study has fulfilled its objective in implementing a competitive state-of-the-art algorithm for detecting plagiarism in Indonesian texts. Being run at our test document corpus, Alvi's highest scores of recall, precision, Plagdet, and detection rate on no-plagiarism cases correspond to its scores when it was tested on PAN'14 corpus. Thus, this study has contributed in creating a standard evaluation corpus for assessing PDS for Indonesian documents. Besides, this study contributes in a source retrieval algorithm which introduces phrasewords as document features, and a paragraph-based text alignment algorithm which relies on two different strategies. One of them is to apply local-word weighting used in text summarization field to select seeds for both discriminating paragraph pair candidates and matching process. The proposed detection algorithm results in almost no multiple detection. This contributes to the strength of this algorithm

TAKSONOMIJA METODA AKADEMSKOG PLAGIRANJA

The article gives an overview of the plagiarism domain, with focus on academic plagiarism. The article defines plagiarism, explains the origin of the term, as well as plagiarism related terms. It identifies the extent of the plagiarism domain and then focuses on the plagiarism subdomain of text documents, for which it gives an overview of current classifications and taxonomies and then proposes a more comprehensive classification according to several criteria: their origin and purpose, technical implementation, consequence, complexity of detection and according to the number of linguistic sources. The article suggests the new classification of academic plagiarism, describes sorts and methods of plagiarism, types and categories, approaches and phases of plagiarism detection, the classification of methods and algorithms for plagiarism detection. The title of the article explicitly targets the academic community, but it is sufficiently general and interdisciplinary, so it can be useful for many other professionals like software developers, linguists and librarians.Rad daje pregled domene plagiranja tekstnih dokumenata. Opisuje porijeklo pojma plagijata, daje prikaz definicija te objašnjava plagijatu srodne pojmove. Ukazuje na širinu domene plagiranja, a za tekstne dokumenate daje pregled dosadašnjih taksonomija i predlaže sveobuhvatniju taksonomiju prema više kriterija: porijeklu i namjeni, tehničkoj provedbi plagiranja, posljedicama plagiranja, složenosti otkrivanja i (više)jezičnom porijeklu. Rad predlaže novu klasifikaciju akademskog plagiranja, prikazuje vrste i metode plagiranja, tipove i kategorije plagijata, pristupe i faze otkrivanja plagiranja. Potom opisuje klasifikaciju metoda i algoritama otkrivanja plagijata. Iako cilja na akademskog čitatelja, može biti od koristi u interdisciplinarnim područjima te razvijateljima softvera, lingvistima i knjižničarima

Cross-Language Plagiarism Detection

Cross-language plagiarism detection deals with the automatic identification and extraction of plagiarism in a multilingual setting. In this setting, a suspicious document is given, and the task is to retrieve all sections from the document that originate from a large, multilingual document collection. Our contributions in this field are as follows: (1) a comprehensive retrieval process for cross-language plagiarism detection is introduced, highlighting the differences to monolingual plagiarism detection, (2) state-of-the-art solutions for two important subtasks are reviewed, (3) retrieval models for the assessment of cross-language similarity are surveyed, and, (4) the three models CL-CNG, CL-ESA and CL-ASA are compared. Our evaluation is of realistic scale: it relies on 120,000 test documents which are selected from the corpora JRC-Acquis and Wikipedia, so that for each test document highly similar documents are available in all of the six languages English, German, Spanish, French, Dutch, and Polish. The models are employed in a series of ranking tasks, and more than 100 million similarities are computed with each model. The results of our evaluation indicate that CL-CNG, despite its simple approach, is the best choice to rank and compare texts across languages if they are syntactically related. CL-ESA almost matches the performance of CL-CNG, but on arbitrary pairs of languages. CL-ASA works best on "exact" translations but does not generalize well.This work was partially supported by the TEXT-ENTERPRISE 2.0 TIN2009-13391-C04-03 project and the CONACyT-Mexico 192021 grant.Potthast, M.; Barrón Cedeño, LA.; Stein, B.; Rosso, P. (2011). Cross-Language Plagiarism Detection. Language Resources and Evaluation. 45(1):45-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-009-9114-zS4562451Ballesteros, L. A. (2001). Resolving ambiguity for cross-language information retrieval: A dictionary approach. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA, Bruce Croft.Barrón-Cedeño, A., Rosso, P., Pinto, D., & Juan A. (2008). On cross-lingual plagiarism analysis using a statistical model. In S. Benno, S. Efstathios, & K. Moshe (Eds.), ECAI 2008 workshop on uncovering plagiarism, authorship, and social software misuse (PAN 08) (pp. 9–13). Patras, Greece.Baum, L. E. (1972). An inequality and associated maximization technique in statistical estimation of probabilistic functions of a Markov process. Inequalities, 3, 1–8.Berger, A., & Lafferty, J. (1999). Information retrieval as statistical translation. In SIGIR’99: Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (vol. 4629, pp. 222–229). Berkeley, California, United States: ACM.Brin, S., Davis, J., & Garcia-Molina, H. (1995). Copy detection mechanisms for digital documents. In SIGMOD ’95 (pp. 398–409). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.Brown, P. F., Della Pietra, S. A., Della Pietra, V. J., & Mercer R. L. (1993). The mathematics of statistical machine translation: Parameter estimation. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 263–311.Ceska, Z., Toman, M., & Jezek, K. (2008). Multilingual plagiarism detection. In AIMSA’08: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 83–92). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Clough, P. (2003). Old and new challenges in automatic plagiarism detection. National UK Plagiarism Advisory Service, http://www.ir.shef.ac.uk/cloughie/papers/pas_plagiarism.pdf .Dempster A. P., Laird N. M., Rubin D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 39(1), 1–38.Dumais, S. T., Letsche, T. A., Littman, M. L., & Landauer, T. K. (1997). Automatic cross-language retrieval using latent semantic indexing. In D. Hull & D. Oard (Eds.), AAAI-97 spring symposium series: Cross-language text and speech retrieval (pp. 18–24). Stanford University, American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Gabrilovich, E., & Markovitch, S. (2007). Computing semantic relatedness using Wikipedia-based explicit semantic analysis. In Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference for artificial intelligence, Hyderabad, India.Hoad T. C., & Zobel, J. (2003). Methods for identifying versioned and plagiarised documents. American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 203–215.Levow, G.-A., Oard, D. W., & Resnik, P. (2005). Dictionary-based techniques for cross-language information retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 41(3), 523–547.Littman, M., Dumais, S. T., & Landauer, T. K. (1998). Automatic cross-language information retrieval using latent semantic indexing. In Cross-language information retrieval, chap. 5 (pp. 51–62). Kluwer.Maurer, H., Kappe, F., & Zaka, B. (2006). Plagiarism—a survey. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 12(8), 1050–1084.McCabe, D. (2005). Research report of the Center for Academic Integrity. http://www.academicintegrity.org .Mcnamee, P., & Mayfield, J. (2004). Character N-gram tokenization for European language text retrieval. Information Retrieval, 7(1–2), 73–97.Meyer zu Eissen, S., & Stein, B. (2006). Intrinsic plagiarism detection. In M. Lalmas, A. MacFarlane, S. M. Rüger, A. Tombros, T. Tsikrika, & A. Yavlinsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the European conference on information retrieval (ECIR 2006), volume 3936 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 565–569). Springer.Meyer zu Eissen, S., Stein, B., & Kulig, M. (2007). Plagiarism detection without reference collections. In R. Decker & H. J. Lenz (Eds.), Advances in data analysis (pp. 359–366), Springer.Och, F. J., & Ney, H. (2003). A systematic comparison of various statistical alignment models. Computational Linguistics, 29(1), 19–51.Pinto, D., Juan, A., & Rosso, P. (2007). Using query-relevant documents pairs for cross-lingual information retrieval. In V. Matousek & P. Mautner (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 630–637). Pilsen, Czech Republic.Pinto, D., Civera, J., Barrón-Cedeño, A., Juan, A., & Rosso, P. (2009). A statistical approach to cross-lingual natural language tasks. Journal of Algorithms, 64(1), 51–60.Potthast, M. (2007). Wikipedia in the pocket-indexing technology for near-duplicate detection and high similarity search. In C. Clarke, N. Fuhr, N. Kando, W. Kraaij, & A. de Vries (Eds.), 30th Annual international ACM SIGIR conference (pp. 909–909). ACM.Potthast, M., Stein, B., & Anderka, M. (2008). A Wikipedia-based multilingual retrieval model. In C. Macdonald, I. Ounis, V. Plachouras, I. Ruthven, & R. W. White (Eds.), 30th European conference on IR research, ECIR 2008, Glasgow , volume 4956 LNCS of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 522–530). Berlin: Springer.Pouliquen, B., Steinberger, R., & Ignat, C. (2003a). Automatic annotation of multilingual text collections with a conceptual thesaurus. In Proceedings of the workshop ’ontologies and information extraction’ at the Summer School ’The Semantic Web and Language Technology—its potential and practicalities’ (EUROLAN’2003) (pp. 9–28), Bucharest, Romania.Pouliquen, B., Steinberger, R., & Ignat, C. (2003b). Automatic identification of document translations in large multilingual document collections. In Proceedings of the international conference recent advances in natural language processing (RANLP’2003) (pp. 401–408). Borovets, Bulgaria.Stein, B. (2007). Principles of hash-based text retrieval. In C. Clarke, N. Fuhr, N. Kando, W. Kraaij, & A. de Vries (Eds.), 30th Annual international ACM SIGIR conference (pp. 527–534). ACM.Stein, B. (2005). Fuzzy-fingerprints for text-based information retrieval. In K. Tochtermann & H. Maurer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference on knowledge management (I-KNOW 05), Graz, Journal of Universal Computer Science. (pp. 572–579). Know-Center.Stein, B., & Anderka, M. (2009). Collection-relative representations: A unifying view to retrieval models. In A. M. Tjoa & R. R. Wagner (Eds.), 20th International conference on database and expert systems applications (DEXA 09) (pp. 383–387). IEEE.Stein, B., & Meyer zu Eissen, S. (2007). Intrinsic plagiarism analysis with meta learning. In B. Stein, M. Koppel, & E. Stamatatos (Eds.), SIGIR workshop on plagiarism analysis, authorship identification, and near-duplicate detection (PAN 07) (pp. 45–50). CEUR-WS.org.Stein, B., & Potthast, M. (2007). Construction of compact retrieval models. In S. Dominich & F. Kiss (Eds.), Studies in theory of information retrieval (pp. 85–93). Foundation for Information Society.Stein, B., Meyer zu Eissen, S., & Potthast, M. (2007). Strategies for retrieving plagiarized documents. In C. Clarke, N. Fuhr, N. Kando, W. Kraaij, & A. de Vries (Eds.), 30th Annual international ACM SIGIR conference (pp. 825–826). ACM.Steinberger, R., Pouliquen, B., Widiger, A., Ignat, C., Erjavec, T., Tufis, D., & Varga, D. (2006). The JRC-Acquis: A multilingual aligned parallel corpus with 20+ languages. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’2006).Steinberger, R., Pouliquen, B., & Ignat, C. (2004). Exploiting multilingual nomenclatures and language-independent text features as an interlingua for cross-lingual text analysis applications. In Proceedings of the 4th Slovenian language technology conference. Information Society 2004 (IS’2004).Vinokourov, A., Shawe-Taylor, J., & Cristianini, N. (2003). Inferring a semantic representation of text via cross-language correlation analysis. In S. Becker, S. Thrun, & K. Obermayer (Eds.), NIPS-02: Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 1473–1480). MIT Press.Yang, Y., Carbonell, J. G., Brown, R. D., & Frederking, R. E. (1998). Translingual information retrieval: Learning from bilingual corpora. Artificial Intelligence, 103(1–2), 323–345