Using a Dictionary and n-gram Alignment to Improve Fine-grained Cross-Language Plagiarism Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Web offers fast and easy access to a wide range of documents in various languages, and translation and editing tools provide the means to create derivative documents fairly easily. This leads to the need to develop effective tools for detecting cross-language plagiarism. Given a suspicious document, cross-language plagiarism detection comprises two main subtasks: retrieving documents that are candidate sources for that document and analyzing those candidates one by one to determine their similarity to the suspicious document. In this paper we focus on the second subtask and introduce a novel approach for assessing cross-language similarity between texts for detecting plagiarized cases. Our proposed approach has two main steps: a vector-based retrieval framework that focuses on high recall, followed by a more precise similarity analysis based on dynamic text alignment. Experiments show that our method outperforms the methods of the best results in PAN-2012 and PAN-2014 in terms of plagdet score. We also show that aligning n-gram units, instead of aligning complete sentences, improves the accuracy of detecting plagiarism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".