Advertisement

Methodology of Selecting the Hadoop Ecosystem Configuration in Order to Improve the Performance of a Plagiarism Detection System

Conference paper
  • 562 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10546)

Abstract

The plagiarism detection problem involves finding patterns in unstructured text documents. Similarity of documents in this approach means that the documents contain some identical phrases with defined minimal length. The typical methods used to find similar documents in digital libraries are not suitable for this task (plagiarism detection) because found documents may contain similar content and we have not any warranty that they contain any of identical phrases. The article describes an example method of searching for similar documents contains identical phrases in big documents repositories, and presents a problem of selecting storage and computing platform suitable for presented method using in plagiarism detection systems. In the article we present comparison of the mentioned above method implementations using two computing platforms: KASKADA and Hadoop with different configurations in order to test and compare their performance and scalability. The method using the default tools available on the Hadoop platform i.e. HDFS and Apache Spark offers worse performance than the method implemented on the KASKADA platform using the NFS (Network File System) and the processing model Master/Slave. The advantage of the Hadoop platform increases with the use of additional data structures (hash-map) and tools offered on this platform, i.e. HBase (NoSQL). The tools integrated with the Hadoop platform provide a possibility of creating efficient and a scalable method for finding similar documents in big repositories. The KASKADA platform offers efficient tools for analysing data in real-time processes i.e. when there is no need to compare the input data to a large collection of information (patterns) and to use the advanced data structures. The Contribution of this article is the comparison of the two computing and storage platforms in order to achieve better performance of the method used in the plagiarism detection system to find similar documents containing identical phrases.

Keywords

Plagiarism Detection System Hadoop Ecosystem Kaskad Hadoop Platform Apache Spark 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Fragidis, L.L., Chatzoglou, P.D., Aggelidis, V.P.: Integrated nationwide electronic health records system: semi-distributed architecture approach. Technol. Health Care 24(6), 827–842 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aletras, N., Tsarapatsanis, D., Preotiuc-Pietro, D., Lampos, V.: Predicting judicial decisions of the European court of human rights: a natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2, e93 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hall, M.A., Wright, R.F.: Systematic content analysis of judicial opinions. Calif. Law Rev. 96(1), 63–122 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jurik, B.A., Blekinge, A.A., Ferneke-Nielsen, R.B., Moldrup-Dalum, P.: Bridging the gap between real world repositories and scalable preservation environments. Int. J. Digit. Libr. 16(3–4), 267–282 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beel, J., Gipp, B., Langer, S., Breitinger, C.: Research-paper recommender systems: a literature survey. Int. J. Digit. Libr. 17(4), 305–338 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tuarob, S., Bhatia, S., Mitra, P., Giles, C.L.: AlgorithmSeer: a system for extracting and searching for algorithms in scholarly big data. IEEE Trans. Big Data 2(1), 3–17 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kong, L., Zhao, Z., Lu, Z., Qi, H., Zhao, F.: A method of plagiarism source retrieval and text alignment based on relevance ranking model. Int. J. Database Theory Appl. 9(12), 35–44 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Velasquez, J.D., Covacevich, Y., Molina, F., Marrese-Taylor, E., Rodriguez, C., Bravo-Marquez, F.: Docode 3.0 (document copy detector): a system for plagiarism detection by applying an information fusion process from multiple documental data sources. Inf. Fusion 27, 64–75 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buyya, R., Yeo, C.S., Venugopal, S.: Market-oriented cloud computing: vision, hype, and reality for delivering it services as computing utilities. In: 10th IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications, 2008, HPCC 2008, pp. 5–13. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krawczyk, H., Proficz, J.: KASKADA - multimedia processing platform architecture. In: Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Signal Processing and Multimedia Applications (SIGMAP), pp. 26–31, July 2010Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    White, T.: Hadoop: The Definitive Guide. O’Reilly Media Inc., Sebastopol (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kasai, T., Lee, G., Arimura, H., Arikawa, S., Park, K.: Linear-time longest-common-prefix computation in suffix arrays and its applications. In: Amir, A. (ed.) CPM 2001. LNCS, vol. 2089, pp. 181–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48194-X_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hunt, J.W., MacIlroy, M.: An algorithm for differential file comparison. Citeseer (1976)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levenshtein, V.I.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Phys. Dokl. 10(8), 707–710 (1966)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winkler, W.E.: The state of record linkage and current research problems. In: Statistical Research Division, US Census Bureau. Citeseer (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baeza-Yates, R., Navarro, G.: A faster algorithm for approximate string matching. In: Hirschberg, D., Myers, G. (eds.) CPM 1996. LNCS, vol. 1075, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61258-0_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cutting, D., Pedersen, J.: Optimization for dynamic inverted index maintenance. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 405–411. ACM (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anh, V.N., Moffat, A.: Inverted index compression using word-aligned binary codes. Inf. Retr. 8(1), 151–166 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yan, H., Ding, S., Suel, T.: Inverted index compression and query processing with optimized document ordering. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 401–410. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gabrilovich, E., Markovitch, S.: Computing semantic relatedness using wikipedia-based explicit semantic analysis. In: IJCAI, vol. 7, pp. 1606–1611 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mcnamee, P., Mayfield, J.: Character n-gram tokenization for European language text retrieval. Inf. Retr. 7(1–2), 73–97 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mayfield, J., McNamee, P.: Single n-gram stemming. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 415–416. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ogawa, Y., Matsuda, T.: An efficient document retrieval method using n-gram indexing. Syst. Comput. Jpn. 33(2), 54–63 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deerwester, S., Dumais, S.T., Furnas, G.W., Landauer, T.K., Harshman, R.: Indexing by latent semantic analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 41(6), 391 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hofmann, T.: Probabilistic latent semantic indexing. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 50–57. ACM (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kanerva, P., Kristofersson, J., Holst, A.: Random indexing of text samples for latent semantic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, vol. 1036. Citeseer (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lewis, D.D., Jones, K.S.: Natural language processing for information retrieval. Commun. ACM 39(1), 92–101 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Strzalkowski, T.: Natural language information retrieval. Inf. Process. Manag. 31(3), 397–417 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schleimer, S., Wilkerson, D.S., Aiken, A.: Winnowing: local algorithms for document fingerprinting. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 76–85. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heintze, N., et al.: Scalable document fingerprinting. In: 1996 USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, vol. 3, no. 1 (1996)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Forman, G., Eshghi, K., Chiocchetti, S.: Finding similar files in large document repositories. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining, pp. 394–400. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Willett, P.: Document retrieval experiments using indexing vocabularies of varying size. II. Hashing, truncation, digram and trigram encoding of index terms. J. Doc. 35(4), 296–305 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dhillon, I.S., Fan, J., Guan, Y.: Efficient clustering of very large document collections. In: Grossman, R.L., Kamath, C., Kegelmeyer, P., Kumar, V., Namburu, R.R. (eds.) Data Mining for Scientific and Engineering Applications. MC, vol. 2, pp. 357–381. Springer, Boston (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1733-7_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Manber, U., et al.: Finding similar files in a large file system. In: USENIX Winter, vol. 94, pp. 1–10 (1994)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chang, F., Dean, J., Ghemawat, S., Hsieh, W.C., Wallach, D.A., Burrows, M., Chandra, T., Fikes, A., Gruber, R.E.: Bigtable: a distributed storage system for structured data. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 26(2), 4:1–4:26 (2008). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1365815.1365816 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zaharia, M., Chowdhury, M., Franklin, M.J., Shenker, S., Stoica, I.: Spark: cluster computing with working sets. In: Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX Conference on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing, HotCloud 2010, p. 10. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2010). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1863103.1863113
  37. 37.
    Rabin, M.O., et al.: Fingerprinting by random polynomials. Center for Research in Computing Technology, Aiken Computation Laboratory, University (1981)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Muthitacharoen, A., Chen, B., Mazieres, D.: A low-bandwidth network file system. In: ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 174–187. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eshghi, K., Tang, H.K.: A framework for analyzing and improving content-based chunking algorithms. Hewlett-Packard Labs Technical Report TR, vol. 30, p. 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shvachko, K., Kuang, H., Radia, S., Chansler, R.: The hadoop distributed file system. In: 2010 IEEE 26th Symposium on Mass Storage Systems and Technologies (MSST), pp. 1–10, May 2010.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MSST.2010.5496972. ISSN 2160-195X

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gdansk University of TechnologyGdanskPoland

Personalised recommendations