Skip to main content
Log in

A machine learning approach to query generation in plagiarism source retrieval

  • Published:
Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Plagiarism source retrieval is the core task of plagiarism detection. It has become the standard for plagiarism detection to use the queries extracted from suspicious documents to retrieve the plagiarism sources. Generating queries from a suspicious document is one of the most important steps in plagiarism source retrieval. Heuristic-based query generation methods are widely used in the current research. Each heuristic-based method has its own advantages, and no one statistically outperforms the others on all suspicious document segments when generating queries for source retrieval. Further improvements on heuristic methods for source retrieval rely mainly on the experience of experts. This leads to difficulties in putting forward new heuristic methods that can overcome the shortcomings of the existing ones. This paper paves the way for a new statistical machine learning approach to select the best queries from the candidates. The statistical machine learning approach to query generation for source retrieval is formulated as a ranking framework. Specifically, it aims to achieve the optimal source retrieval performance for each suspicious document segment. The proposed method exploits learning to rank to generate queries from the candidates. To our knowledge, our work is the first research to apply machine learning methods to resolve the problem of query generation for source retrieval. To solve the essential problem of an absence of training data for learning to rank, the building of training samples for source retrieval is also conducted. We rigorously evaluate various aspects of the proposed method on the publicly available PAN source retrieval corpus. With respect to the established baselines, the experimental results show that applying our proposed query generation method based on machine learning yields statistically significant improvements over baselines in source retrieval effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alzahrani, S.M., Salim, N., Abraham, A., 2012. Understanding plagiarism linguistic patterns, textual features, and de-tection methods. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. C, 42(2): 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2011.2134847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrón-Cedeño, A., Vila, M., Martí, M.A., et al., 2013. Pla-giarism meets paraphrasing: insights for the next genera-tion in automatic plagiarism detection. Comput. Ling., 39(4): 917–947. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, Y., Xu, J., Liu, T.Y., et al., 2006. Adapting ranking SVM to document retrieval. Proc. 29th Annual Int. ACM SIGIR Conf. on Research and Development in Infor-mation Retrieval, p.186–193. https://doi.org/10.1145/1148170.1148205

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortes, C., Vapnik, V., 1995. Support-vector networks. Mach. Learn., 20(3): 273–297. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022627411411

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Elizalde, V., 2013. Using statistic and semantic analysis to detect plagiarism—notebook for PAN at CLEF 2013. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillam, L., 2013. Guess again and see if they line up: surrey’s runs at plagiarism detection—notebook for PAN at CLEF 2013. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, M., Potthast, M., Stein, B., 2015. Source retrieval for plagiarism detection from large web corpora: recent ap-proaches. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggag, O., El-Beltagy, S., 2013. Plagiarism candidate retrieval using selective query formulation and discriminative query scoring—notebook for PAN at CLEF 2013. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J., 2001. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference and Predic-tion. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Herbrich, R., Graepel, T., Obermayer, K., 2000. Large margin rank boundaries for ordinal regression. In: Smola, A.J., Bartlett, P., Schölkopf, B., et al. (Eds.), Advances in Large Margin Classifiers. MIT Press, Cambridge, p.115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höffgen, K.U., Simon, H.U., Vanhorn, K.S., 1995. Robust trainability of single neurons. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 50(1): 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcss.1995.1011

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jayapal, A., 2012. Similarity overlap metric and greedy string tiling at PAN 2012: plagiarism detection—notebook for PAN at CLEF 2012. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joachims, T., 2002. Optimizing search engines using click-through data. Proc. 8th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, p.133–142. https://doi.org/10.1145/775047.775067

    Google Scholar 

  • Kong, L.L., Qi, H.L., Wang, S., et al., 2012. Approaches for candidate document retrieval and detailed comparison of plagiarism detection—notebook for PAN at CLEF 2012. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T., Chae, J., Park, K., et al., 2013. CopyCaptor: plagia-rized source retrieval system using global word frequency and local feedback—notebook for PAN at CLEF 2013. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nallapati, R., 2004. Discriminative models for information retrieval. Proc. 27th Annual ACM SIGIR Int. Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, p.64–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/1008992.1009006

    Google Scholar 

  • Potthast, M., Gollub, T., Hagen, M., et al., 2012a. Overview of the 4th International Competition on Plagiarism Detec-tion. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potthast, M., Hagen, M., Stein, B., et al., 2012b. ChatNoir: a search engine for the ClueWeb09 corpus. Proc. 35th Int. ACM SIGIR Conf. on Research and Development in In-formation Retrieval, p.1004. https://doi.org/10.1145/2348283.2348429

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Potthast, M., Hagen, M., Gollub, T., et al., 2013a. Overview of the 5th International Competition on Plagiarism Detec-tion. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potthast, M., Hagen, M., Völske, M., et al., 2013b. Crowdsourcing interaction logs to understand text reuse from the web. Proc. 51st ACM Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, p.1212–1221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potthast, M., Hagen, M., Beyer, A., et al., 2014. Overview of the 6th International Competition on Plagiarism Detection. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakash, A., Saha, S., 2014. Experiments on document chunking and query formation for plagiarism source re-trieval—notebook for PAN at CLEF 2014. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafiei, J., Mohtaj, S., Zarrabi, V., et al., 2015. Source retrieval plagiarism detection based on noun phrase and keyword phrase extraction—notebook for PAN at CLEF 2015. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, S.E., 1997. Overview of the Okapi projects. J. Docum., 53(1): 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchomel, Š., Brandejs, M., 2015. Improving synoptic que-rying for source retrieval—notebook for PAN at CLEF 2015. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C.D., et al., 2003. Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. Proc. Conf. of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology, p.173–180. https://doi.org/10.3115/1073445.1073478

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., Chen, H.H., Choudhury, S.R., et al., 2013. Un-supervised ranking for plagiarism source retrieval— notebook for PAN at CLEF 2013. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., Chen, H.H., Giles, C.L., 2014a. Supervised ranking for plagiarism source retrieval—notebook for PAN at CLEF 2014. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., Chen, H.H., Giles, C.L., 2014b. Classifying and ranking search engine results as potential sources of pla-giarism. Proc. ACM Symp. on Document Engineering, p.97–106. https://doi.org/10.1145/2644866.2644879

    Google Scholar 

  • Zubarev, D., Sochenkov, I., 2014. Using sentence similarity measure for plagiarism source retrieval—notebook for PAN at CLEF 2014. Proc. CLEF Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Working Notes Papers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Lei-lei Kong or Hao-liang Qi.

Additional information

Project supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (No. 14CTQ032) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61370170)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kong, Ll., Lu, Zm., Qi, Hl. et al. A machine learning approach to query generation in plagiarism source retrieval. Frontiers Inf Technol Electronic Eng 18, 1556–1572 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1631/FITEE.1601344

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1631/FITEE.1601344

Keywords

CLC number

Navigation