Skip Navigation

The Computer Journal 1996 39(9):741-750; doi:10.1093/comjnl/39.9.741
© 1996 by British Computer Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Verco, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by Wise, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Plagiarism à la Mode: A Comparison of Automated Systems for Detecting Suspected Plagiarism

K. L. Verco * and M. J. Wise *

Department of Computer Science, University of Sydney, F09, NSW 2006, Australia

Early automated systems for detecting plagiarism in student programs employed attribute counting techniques in their comparisons of program texts, while more recent systems use encoded structural information. Whales claims that the latter are more effective in their detection of plagiarisms than systems based on attribute counting. To explore the validity of these claims, a comparison is presented of five systems, two based on attribute counting and three using metrics based on structure. The major result of this study is that the systems based on structural information consistently equal or better the performance of systems based on attribute counting metrics. A second conclusion is that of the structure metric systems, one using approximate tokenization of input texts (YAP) is as effective as a system that undertakes a complete parse (Plague). Approximate tokenization offers a considerable reduction in the costs of porting to new languages. A distinction is also made between forms of plagiarism common among novice programmers and those employed by more experienced programmers.

Received December 21, 1995. revised June 6, 1997.

* Department of Computer Science, University of Sydney, F09, NSW 2006, Australia Email: michaelw{at}cs.su.oz.au


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.