Cited by 58Academic integrity and plagiarismSoftware Engineering ResearchTeaching and Learning Programming

Automatic Source Code Plagiarism Detection

Kustanto, Cynthia, Liem, Inggriani·2009·2009 10th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligences, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing

Abstract

Plagiarism is one form of academic dishonesty, which is often done by students in programming classes. In a large class, detecting plagiarism manually is both difficult and time-consuming, especially due to the numerous modifications of the source code to conceal the cheating.We designed and developed Deimos, a prototype of a source code plagiarism detector, which can be extended to handle other programming languages, simply by implementing new scanners and parsers. Deimos works in two steps: (1) parsing source code and transforming it into tokens, and then (2) comparing each pair of token strings obtained in the first step using Running Karp-Rabin Greedy String Tiling algorithm. Instructor can access Deimos via a web application interface that receives input parameters, triggers a background process, and displays the result. The web interface offers user friendliness while the background process prevents timeout and reduces bandwidth consumption. This approach was chosen since Deimos is intended to be used for processing more than 100 source code. The web application was implemented using PHP, while Java was used to implement the backend application, which is responsible for the background process.Unit test, functional test, and nonfunctional test has been conducted. Detection time is 1 hour for processing 100 samples of beginner's source code taken from real assignment of our programming class where the average length of source code is 150 lines. This code similarity detect…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/snpd.2009.62

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 12 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kustanto, C., & Liem, I.
Affiliations
Bandung Institute of Technology (ID)
Venue
2009 10th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligences, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2009-05
Pages
481-486
OpenAlex
W2134113558
Cited by
58
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
5.09
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
Keywords
code plagiarism detection, academic dishonesty, programming education, tokenization, code similarity, web application, automated grading, Deimos

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review