A quantitative comparison of program plagiarism detection tools

Daniël Heres; Jurriaan Hage

doi:10.1145/3162087.3162101

A quantitative comparison of program plagiarism detection tools

Daniël Heres, Jurriaan Hage

Utrecht University

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

In this work we compare a total of 9 different tools for the detection of source code plagiarism. We evaluated the plagiarism or copy detection tools CPD, JPlag, Sherlock, Marble, Moss, Plaggie and SIM and two baselines, one based on the Unix tool diff and one based on the difflib module from the Python Standard Library. We provide visualizations of the output of these tools and compare the performance of each tool when running it on different tasks by comparing both the F-measures and the area under the precision-recall-curve (AUC-PR). We compare the performance using these metrics on each task and identify the best performing tools.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	CSERC '17: Proceedings of the 6th Computer Science Education Research Conference
Editors	Vreda Pieterse, Marko van Eekelen, Michalis Giannakos
Publisher	Association for Computing Machinery
Pages	73-82
Number of pages	10
ISBN (Electronic)	9781450363389
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1145/3162087.3162101
Publication status	Published - 14 Nov 2017
Event	6th Computer Science Education Research Conference, CSERC 2017 - Helsinki, Finland Duration: 13 Nov 2017 → 14 Nov 2017

Publication series

Name	ACM International Conference Proceeding Series

Conference

Conference	6th Computer Science Education Research Conference, CSERC 2017
Country/Territory	Finland
City	Helsinki
Period	13/11/17 → 14/11/17

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Association for Computing Machinery.

Keywords

Empirical study
Program plagiarism detection
Quantitative comparison
Tools

Access to Document

10.1145/3162087.3162101

3162087.3162101Final published version, 1.95 MBLicence: Taverne

Cite this

Heres, D., & Hage, J. (2017). A quantitative comparison of program plagiarism detection tools. In V. Pieterse, M. van Eekelen, & M. Giannakos (Eds.), CSERC '17: Proceedings of the 6th Computer Science Education Research Conference (pp. 73-82). (ACM International Conference Proceeding Series). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3162087.3162101

@inproceedings{e166a881acfc499ca234b786070b6963,

title = "A quantitative comparison of program plagiarism detection tools",

abstract = "In this work we compare a total of 9 different tools for the detection of source code plagiarism. We evaluated the plagiarism or copy detection tools CPD, JPlag, Sherlock, Marble, Moss, Plaggie and SIM and two baselines, one based on the Unix tool diff and one based on the difflib module from the Python Standard Library. We provide visualizations of the output of these tools and compare the performance of each tool when running it on different tasks by comparing both the F-measures and the area under the precision-recall-curve (AUC-PR). We compare the performance using these metrics on each task and identify the best performing tools.",

keywords = "Empirical study, Program plagiarism detection, Quantitative comparison, Tools",

author = "Dani{\"e}l Heres and Jurriaan Hage",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2017 Association for Computing Machinery.; 6th Computer Science Education Research Conference, CSERC 2017 ; Conference date: 13-11-2017 Through 14-11-2017",

year = "2017",

month = nov,

day = "14",

doi = "10.1145/3162087.3162101",

language = "English",

series = "ACM International Conference Proceeding Series",

publisher = "Association for Computing Machinery",

pages = "73--82",

editor = "Vreda Pieterse and {van Eekelen}, Marko and Michalis Giannakos",

booktitle = "CSERC '17: Proceedings of the 6th Computer Science Education Research Conference",

address = "United States",

}

Heres, D & Hage, J 2017, A quantitative comparison of program plagiarism detection tools. in V Pieterse, M van Eekelen & M Giannakos (eds), CSERC '17: Proceedings of the 6th Computer Science Education Research Conference. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 73-82, 6th Computer Science Education Research Conference, CSERC 2017, Helsinki, Finland, 13/11/17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3162087.3162101

A quantitative comparison of program plagiarism detection tools. / Heres, Daniël; Hage, Jurriaan.
CSERC '17: Proceedings of the 6th Computer Science Education Research Conference. ed. / Vreda Pieterse; Marko van Eekelen; Michalis Giannakos. Association for Computing Machinery, 2017. p. 73-82 (ACM International Conference Proceeding Series).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution › Academic › peer-review

TY - GEN

T1 - A quantitative comparison of program plagiarism detection tools

AU - Heres, Daniël

AU - Hage, Jurriaan

PY - 2017/11/14

Y1 - 2017/11/14

N2 - In this work we compare a total of 9 different tools for the detection of source code plagiarism. We evaluated the plagiarism or copy detection tools CPD, JPlag, Sherlock, Marble, Moss, Plaggie and SIM and two baselines, one based on the Unix tool diff and one based on the difflib module from the Python Standard Library. We provide visualizations of the output of these tools and compare the performance of each tool when running it on different tasks by comparing both the F-measures and the area under the precision-recall-curve (AUC-PR). We compare the performance using these metrics on each task and identify the best performing tools.

AB - In this work we compare a total of 9 different tools for the detection of source code plagiarism. We evaluated the plagiarism or copy detection tools CPD, JPlag, Sherlock, Marble, Moss, Plaggie and SIM and two baselines, one based on the Unix tool diff and one based on the difflib module from the Python Standard Library. We provide visualizations of the output of these tools and compare the performance of each tool when running it on different tasks by comparing both the F-measures and the area under the precision-recall-curve (AUC-PR). We compare the performance using these metrics on each task and identify the best performing tools.

KW - Empirical study

KW - Program plagiarism detection

KW - Quantitative comparison

KW - Tools

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044376028&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1145/3162087.3162101

DO - 10.1145/3162087.3162101

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:85044376028

T3 - ACM International Conference Proceeding Series

SP - 73

EP - 82

BT - CSERC '17: Proceedings of the 6th Computer Science Education Research Conference

A2 - Pieterse, Vreda

A2 - van Eekelen, Marko

A2 - Giannakos, Michalis

PB - Association for Computing Machinery

T2 - 6th Computer Science Education Research Conference, CSERC 2017

Y2 - 13 November 2017 through 14 November 2017

ER -

A quantitative comparison of program plagiarism detection tools

Abstract

Publication series

Conference

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this