Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education 2019
DOI: 10.1145/3304221.3319789
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Syntax-based Improvements to Plagiarism Detectors and their Evaluations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition to Moss, we aimed to collect all of the related systems described in Section 8. This effort was largely unsuccessful, with three exceptions: JPlag [Prechelt et al 2002], Sherlock [Joy and Luck 1999], and Fett [Nichols et al 2019]. JPlag and Sherlock are the only tools, aside from Moss, our survey respondents reported using.…”
Section: Other Plagiarism Detection Toolsmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In addition to Moss, we aimed to collect all of the related systems described in Section 8. This effort was largely unsuccessful, with three exceptions: JPlag [Prechelt et al 2002], Sherlock [Joy and Luck 1999], and Fett [Nichols et al 2019]. JPlag and Sherlock are the only tools, aside from Moss, our survey respondents reported using.…”
Section: Other Plagiarism Detection Toolsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Unfortunately, this effort was largely unsuccessful, as almost none of these systems are available for use. We reached out to the authors of the cited papers, and were unsuccessful in obtaining any of their systems, with three exceptions: JPlag [Prechelt et al 2002], Sherlock [Joy and Luck 1999], and Fett [Nichols et al 2019]. We focus our evaluation on JPlag, since it was the second-most popular tool cited by our survey respondents.…”
Section: Rq6: Mossad Vs Other Plagiarism Detectorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A similar technique is used by MOSS [46]. Aiming for higher efectiveness, a number of techniques use more complex representations such as syntax trees [38] and program dependency graphs [35].…”
Section: Code Similarity Detectorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this section we provide a brief overview of various approaches proposed for the detection of plagiarism and paraphrase plagiarism. In particular, approaches based on character and word n-gram similarity (Bensalem et al 2019;Sánchez-Vega et al 2017), vector space models (Sanchez-Perez et al 2014), natural language processing (Chong 2013;Kanjirangat and Gupta 2018) machine translation similarity metrics (Madnani et al 2012) and alignment algorithms (Nichols et al 2019) have been successfully applied towards plagiarism detection. Despite these advances, plagiarism detection when text has been paraphrased remains a challenge due to limited success in measuring semantic overlap (Carmona et al 2018).…”
Section: Plagiarism Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%