Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 cited by

A weighted partial similarity framework detects partial code reuse at the project level more reliably than prior methods.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 10:22 UTC pith:4Q5YCNSX

load-bearing objection The paper introduces sensible mechanisms for project-level birthmark comparison but the evaluation setup using same-project versions falls short of testing the partial cross-project reuse it aims to address. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2606.25418 v2 pith:4Q5YCNSX submitted 2026-06-24 cs.SE

Project-wise Comparison of Software Birthmarks Using Weighted Partial Similarity

Nikolay Fedorov , Akito Monden , Hiroki Inayoshi , Haruaki Tamada , Masateru Tsunoda This is my paper
classification cs.SE
keywords software birthmarkspartial code reuseproject-wise comparisonweighted similaritycode plagiarism detectionJava projectsresilience and credibility
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets up a framework that compares software birthmarks across whole projects by symmetrically aggregating similarities between their modules. It adds two mechanisms: a weighting that gives more importance to larger modules to reduce noise from small incidental matches, and a partial similarity step that considers only the top fraction of the most similar module pairs. These are tested on 35 open-source Java projects by treating version differences as reuse cases, with success measured by the harmonic mean of resilience and credibility scores. A reader would care because actual software reuse often copies only selected modules between projects, a scenario that breaks standard module-by-module birthmark checks.

Core claim

By establishing a symmetric aggregation framework for project-wise birthmark comparison, introducing a weighting scheme that prioritizes larger modules, and applying a partial similarity method focused on the top fraction of highly similar module pairs, the approach achieves robust and stable detection of partial code reuse at the project level and consistently outperforms existing methods when evaluated on resilience and credibility across 35 Java projects in ten categories.

What carries the argument

Symmetric aggregation of module-level similarities, combined with size-based weighting and top-fraction partial similarity selection.

Load-bearing premise

Treating different versions of the same project as valid examples of partial reuse accurately models how modules are selectively copied between unrelated projects.

What would settle it

If the method fails to identify known partial module reuses between distinct unrelated projects or produces many false positives among independent projects, the performance advantage would be falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Detects reuse even when only a small fraction of modules is copied.
  • Reduces false positives from incidental similarities in small modules.
  • Maintains stable results across varied project categories.
  • Improves the combined resilience-credibility score via harmonic mean.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method could support automated checks for open-source license compliance when projects borrow code fragments.
  • Project-level analysis may become necessary for any realistic reuse or plagiarism tool.
  • Testing the same weighting and partial focus on non-Java codebases would check whether the gains generalize.
  • Embedding the approach in build or version-control pipelines could enable ongoing reuse monitoring.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for project-wise software birthmark comparison via symmetric aggregation of module-level similarities. It introduces a weighting scheme that prioritizes larger modules to mitigate noise from small ones, and a partial similarity method that considers only the top fraction of highly similar module pairs to detect partial reuse. The approach is evaluated on 35 open-source Java projects across ten categories by treating pairs of different versions of the same project as positive reuse cases. Performance is measured via resilience and credibility (combined by harmonic mean), with the claim that the method consistently outperforms existing approaches for robust project-level partial reuse detection. The dataset and artifacts are released publicly.

Significance. If the central claim holds after addressing the evaluation gap, the work would provide a practical advance in birthmark-based detection of partial code reuse at the project level, which is more representative of real-world scenarios than module-level comparisons. The public release of the dataset and experimental artifacts is a clear strength, enabling reproducibility and follow-on research.

major comments (1)
  1. [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: Positive cases are constructed exclusively from version pairs within the same 35 projects. These pairs share evolutionary history and large overlapping codebases, unlike the selective module copying across unrelated projects that motivates the weighting scheme and top-fraction partial similarity. Because the mechanisms target the cross-project partial case yet the reported outperformance is measured only on the within-project version task, it is unclear whether the performance advantage generalizes to the intended scenario.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for highlighting this important distinction in the evaluation design. We provide a point-by-point response below and indicate where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: Positive cases are constructed exclusively from version pairs within the same 35 projects. These pairs share evolutionary history and large overlapping codebases, unlike the selective module copying across unrelated projects that motivates the weighting scheme and top-fraction partial similarity. Because the mechanisms target the cross-project partial case yet the reported outperformance is measured only on the within-project version task, it is unclear whether the performance advantage generalizes to the intended scenario.

    Authors: We agree that the positive cases are intra-project version pairs rather than selective cross-project module copying. Version pairs were chosen because they provide controlled, realistic partial reuse (modules added/removed/modified across releases) while allowing direct measurement of resilience under evolutionary change—the core property birthmarks must satisfy. This is a standard evaluation practice in the birthmark literature for the same reason. Nevertheless, the referee correctly notes that this does not fully replicate the cross-project selective-reuse scenario that motivates the weighting and partial-similarity mechanisms. We will revise the evaluation section to (a) explicitly acknowledge this limitation, (b) add a new subsection discussing how the proposed mechanisms are expected to behave under cross-project reuse, and (c) include at least one additional cross-project experiment using the released dataset (pairing modules from unrelated projects within the same category) to provide supporting evidence. These changes will be reflected in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation and evaluation are self-contained against external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper defines a symmetric aggregation framework plus weighting and top-fraction partial-similarity mechanisms from first principles to address partial reuse and incidental similarity. These definitions stand independently of the evaluation data. The evaluation applies the method to a public dataset of 35 Java projects (version pairs treated as reuse cases) and reports resilience/credibility harmonic means; no parameters are fitted to the test outcomes, no self-citation chain supports the central claims, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction. The choice of positive examples is an external modeling decision, not a definitional loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based solely on abstract; no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified without full text. Approach appears to build on standard similarity aggregation from prior birthmark literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5810 in / 978 out tokens · 46123 ms · 2026-06-30T10:22:21.131449+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Software birthmarks provide a robust approach to detecting code plagiarism even under substantial modifications, while distinguishing independently developed software. Existing similarity measures are typically applied at the module level (e.g., source or class files). However, in practice, software reuse often occurs at the project level, where only a subset of modules may be reused. This setting introduces two key challenges: (1) partial reuse, where reused modules constitute only a small fraction of the project, and (2) incidental similarity from small modules, which can lead to false positives. In this paper, we establish a framework for project-wise birthmark comparison based on a symmetric aggregation of module-level similarities. On top of this framework, we propose two complementary mechanisms to address the above challenges. First, we introduce a weighting scheme that assigns higher importance to larger modules, reducing the influence of noisy matches from small modules. Second, we propose a partial similarity method that focuses on the top fraction of highly similar module pairs, enabling robust detection of partial reuse. We evaluate the proposed approach on 35 open-source Java projects across ten categories, where different versions of the same project are treated as reuse cases. The dataset and experimental artifacts are made publicly available to support reproducibility. Performance is assessed using two complementary properties of software birthmarks, resilience and credibility, combined via their harmonic mean. The results show that the proposed method consistently outperforms existing approaches, achieving robust and stable detection of partial code reuse at the project level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25418 by Akito Monden, Haruaki Tamada, Hiroki Inayoshi, Masateru Tsunoda, Nikolay Fedorov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overall comparison of project-wise similarity methods in terms of Hmean. For the proposed method, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Effect of weighting on the proposed method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Effect of weighting on the SA in terms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of comparison scope (partial similarity ratio) on the proposed method (partial similarity with weight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of k-gram size (k ∈ {1, . . . , 6}) on the proposed method (weighting + partial similarity, scope = 1%), evaluated in terms of Hmean. Cosine (count vect.) Cosine (TF-IDF vect.) Dice index Edit distance Jaccard coefficient Simpson index 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of module-wise similarity functions for proposed method (weighting + partial similarity, scope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Per-category performance of the proposed method (weighting + partial similarity) in terms of Hmean. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Detection of LLM-assisted Code Plagiarism Using k-gram Software Birthmarks

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Opcode k-gram software birthmarks, especially 2-grams with Dice similarity, detect LLM code paraphrasing with high Hmean, though ChatGPT-style models are hardest to catch.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Open Source Software Detection using Function-level Static Software Birthmark

    D. Kim, S. Cho, S. Han, M. Park, and I. You, “Open Source Software Detection using Function-level Static Software Birthmark”,Journal of Internet Services and Information Security (JISIS), vol.4, no.4, pp. 25– 37, 2014. doi: 10.22667/JISIS.2014.11.31.025

    work page doi:10.22667/jisis.2014.11.31.025 2014

  2. [2]

    D´ ej` aVu: A Map of Code Duplicates on GitHub

    C. V. Lopes, P. Maj, P. Martins, V. Saini, D. Yang, J. Zitny, H. Sajnani, and J. Vitek, “D´ ej` aVu: A Map of Code Duplicates on GitHub”, inProc. ACM Program. Lang., vol. 1, 28 pages, 2017. doi: 10.1145/3133908

    work page doi:10.1145/3133908 2017

  3. [3]

    Identifying Open-Source License Violation and 1-day Security Risk at Large Scale

    R. Duan, A. Bijlani, M. Xu, T. Kim, and W. Lee, “Identifying Open-Source License Violation and 1-day Security Risk at Large Scale”,CCS ’17, USA, 2017. doi: 10.1145/3133956.3134048

    work page doi:10.1145/3133956.3134048 2017

  4. [4]

    Stack Overflow: A Code Laundering Platform?

    L. An, o. Mlouki, F. Khomh, and G. Antoniol, “Stack Overflow: A Code Laundering Platform?”. arXiv:1703.03897 [cs.SE], 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Sourcerer's Apprentice and the study of code snippet migration

    S. Romansky, C. Chen, B. Malhotra, and A. Hindle, “Sourcerer’s Apprentice and the study of code snippet migration”. arXiv:1808.00106 [cs.SE], 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    A Study of Potential Code Borrowing and License Violations in Java Projects on GitHub

    Y. Golubev, M. Eliseeva, N. Povarov, and T. Bryksin, “A Study of Potential Code Borrowing and License Violations in Java Projects on GitHub”. arXiv:2002.05237 [cs.SE], 2020

    work page arXiv 2002

  7. [7]

    Detecting the Theft of Programs Us- ing Birthmarks

    H. Tamada, M. Nakamura, A. Monden, and K. Matsumoto, “Detecting the Theft of Programs Us- ing Birthmarks”,Information Science Technical Re- port, NAIST-IS-TR2003014, ISSN 0919-9527, Grad- uate School of Information Science, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Japan, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    k-gram based software birthmarks

    G. Myles and C. Collberg, “k-gram based software birthmarks”,Proc. 2005 ACM symposium on Applied Computing, pp.314—318, ACM, 2005

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    Design and evaluation of birthmarks for de- tecting theft of Java programs

    H. Tamada, M. Nakamura, A. Monden, and K. Mat- sumoto, “Design and evaluation of birthmarks for de- tecting theft of Java programs”, inProc. IASTED SE 2004, pp.569—575, Innsbruck, Austria, 2004

    work page 2004

  10. [10]

    Java birthmarks - detecting the software theft

    H. Tamada, M. Nakamura, A. Monden, and K. Mat- sumoto, “Java birthmarks - detecting the software theft”,IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst., E88-D(9): pp.2148— 2158, 2005. doi: 10.1093/ietisy/e88-d.9.2148

    work page doi:10.1093/ietisy/e88-d.9.2148 2005

  11. [11]

    API-based software birthmarking method using fuzzy hashing,

    D. Lee, D. Kang, Y. Choi, J. Kim, and D. Won, “API-based software birthmarking method using fuzzy hashing,”IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst., E99.D(7): pp.1836-–1851, 2016. doi: 10.1587/transinf.2015EDP7379

    work page doi:10.1587/transinf.2015edp7379 2016

  12. [12]

    A static API birthmark for windows binary executa- bles

    S. Choi, H. Park, H. I. Lim, and T. Han, “A static API birthmark for windows binary executa- bles”,Journal of Systems and Software, 82(5):862— 873, 2009

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    Detecting Software Theft with API Call Sequence Sets

    D. Schuler and V. Dallmeier, “Detecting Software Theft with API Call Sequence Sets”, inProc. of the 8th Workshop Software Reengineering (WSR’06), Germany, 2006

    work page 2006

  14. [14]

    Comparison of Similarity Functions for n-gram Software Birthmarks,

    N. Fedorov, H. Tamada, H. Inayoshi, and A. Mon- den, “Comparison of Similarity Functions for n-gram Software Birthmarks,” inProc. of the 2024 The 6th World Symposium on Software Engineering (WSSE), pp.169—176, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3698062.3698087

    work page doi:10.1145/3698062.3698087 2024

  15. [15]

    Detecting software theft via whole program path birthmarks

    G. Myles and C. Collberg, “ Detecting software theft via whole program path birthmarks”,Information se- curity, pp.404—415, Springer, 2004

    work page 2004

  16. [16]

    Using software birth- marks to identify similar classes and major function- alities

    T. Kakimoto, A. Monden, Y. Kamei, H. Tamada, M. Tsunoda, and K. Matsumoto, “Using software birth- marks to identify similar classes and major function- alities”, inProc. of the 2006 International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR ’06), Associa- tion for Computing Machinery, pp.171–172, 2006. doi: 10.1145/1137983.1138026. 16 Table 5: Open-sourc...

    work page doi:10.1145/1137983.1138026 2006

  17. [17]

    Effects of nested classes

    IBM Corporation, “Effects of nested classes.” [On- line]. Available:www.ibm.com/docs/en/clearcase/ 11.0.0?topic=omake-effects-nested-classes, Accessed on: Mar. 10, 2025

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Nested Classes

    Oracle Corporation, “Nested Classes.” [Online]. Available:https://docs.oracle.com/javase/ tutorial/java/javaOO/nested.html, Accessed on: Mar. 10, 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Software plagiarism detection: a graph- based approach

    D.-K. Chae, J. Ha, S.-W. Kim, B. Kang, and E. G. Im, “Software plagiarism detection: a graph- based approach”,Proc. 22nd ACM Intern. Conf. on Inf. and Knowl. Manag., pp.1577–1580, 2013. doi: 10.1145/2505515.2507848

    work page doi:10.1145/2505515.2507848 2013

  20. [20]

    A sur- vey of software watermarking

    W. Zhu, C. Thomborson, and F.-Y. Wang, “A sur- vey of software watermarking”,Intel. and Sec. Inf., pp.454-–458, Springer, 2005

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    A practical method for watermarking Java programs

    A. Monden, H. Iida, K. Matsumoto, K. Inoue, and K. Torii, “A practical method for watermarking Java programs”, inProc. 24th IEEE compsac2000, pp.191– 197, Taipei, Taiwan, 2000

    work page 2000

  22. [22]

    A method for detecting the theft of java programs through anal- ysis of the control flow information

    H.-I. Lim, H. Park, S. Choi, and T. Han, “A method for detecting the theft of java programs through anal- ysis of the control flow information”,Information and Software Technology, vol.51, no.9, pp.1338-–1350, 2009

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Software birthmark design and estimation: A systematic litera- ture review

    S. Nazir, S. Shahzad, and N. Mukhtar, “Software birthmark design and estimation: A systematic litera- ture review”,Arab. Journal for Science and Engineer- ing, vol.44, pp.3905–3927, 2019. doi: 10.1007/s13369- 019-03718-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s13369- 2019

  24. [24]

    Design and Evaluation of Dynamic Soft- ware Birthmarks Based on API Calls

    H. Tamada, K. Okamoto, M. Nakamura, and A. Monden, “Design and Evaluation of Dynamic Soft- ware Birthmarks Based on API Calls”,Information Science Technical Report, NAIST-IS-TR2007011, ISSN 0919-9527, Graduate School of Information Science, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Japan, 2007

    work page 2007

  25. [25]

    A New Soft- ware Birthmark based on Weight Sequences of Dy- namic Control Flow Graph for Plagiarism Detection

    B. Yuan, J. Wang, Z. Fang, and L. Qi, “A New Soft- ware Birthmark based on Weight Sequences of Dy- namic Control Flow Graph for Plagiarism Detection”, The Computer Journal, vol.61, no.8, pp.1202—1215,

    work page

  26. [26]

    doi: 10.1093/comjnl/bxy055

    work page doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxy055

  27. [27]

    Dynamic Software Birthmarks to Detect the Theft of Windows Applications

    H. Tamada, K. Okamoto, M. Nakamura, and A. Monden, “Dynamic Software Birthmarks to Detect the Theft of Windows Applications”,International Symposium on Future Software Technology, vol. 20, no. 22, 2004

    work page 2004

  28. [28]

    Software Plagiarism Detection with Birthmarks Based on Dynamic Key Instruc- tion Sequences

    Z. Tian, Q. Zheng, T. Liu, M. Fan, E. Zhuang, and Z. Yang, “Software Plagiarism Detection with Birthmarks Based on Dynamic Key Instruc- tion Sequences”,IEEE Trans. on Software Engi- neering, vol.41, no.12, pp.1217–1235, 2015. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2015.2454508

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2015.2454508 2015

  29. [29]

    Malware Variant Detec- tion Using Similarity Search over Sets of Control Flow Graphs

    S. Cesare and Y. Xiang, “Malware Variant Detec- tion Using Similarity Search over Sets of Control Flow Graphs”,2011IEEE 10th International Conference on 17 Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Com- munications, Changsha, China, 2011, pp. 181–189. doi: 10.1109/TrustCom.2011.26

    work page doi:10.1109/trustcom.2011.26 2011

  30. [30]

    A summary of the international standard date and time notation

    Markus Kuhn, “A summary of the international standard date and time notation”, [Online]. Avail- able:https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/ ~mgk25/iso- time.html. Accessed on: Mar. 13, 2025

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    ReDeBug: finding unpatched code clones in entire os distribu- tions

    J. Jang, A. Agrawal, and D. Brumley, “ReDeBug: finding unpatched code clones in entire os distribu- tions”, inProc. of the 33rd IEEE Symposium on Se- curity and Privacy (Oakland), USA, 2012

    work page 2012

  32. [32]

    Towards the auto extraction for the dynamic software birth- marks with the inputs from the plaintiff software

    C. Alejandro, H. Tamada, and Y. Kanzaki, “Towards the auto extraction for the dynamic software birth- marks with the inputs from the plaintiff software”, Proc. of the Forum on Information Technology (FIT), vol.22, no.1, pp.165–168, 2023

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Clone search for malicious code correlation

    P. Charland, B. C. Fung, and M. R. Farhadi, “Clone search for malicious code correlation”,In ATO RTO Symposium on Information Assurance and Cyber De- fense (IST-111), 2012

    work page 2012

  34. [34]

    Public Git Archive: a Big Code dataset for all

    V. Markovtsev, W. Long, “Public Git Archive: a Big Code dataset for all”,Proc. of the 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (ICSE ’18), pp.34–37, 2018. doi: 10.1145/3196398.3196464

    work page doi:10.1145/3196398.3196464 2018

  35. [35]

    A Software Birthmark Based on Dynamic Op- code n-gram

    B. Lu, F. Liu, X. Ge, B. Liu, and X. Luo, “A Software Birthmark Based on Dynamic Op- code n-gram”,International Conference on Seman- tic Computing (ICSC 2007), pp.37–44, 2007. doi: 10.1109/ICSC.2007.15

    work page doi:10.1109/icsc.2007.15 2007

  36. [36]

    Program Characterization Using Runtime Values and Its Application to Software Plagiarism Detection

    Y.-C. Jhi, X. Jia, X. Wang, S. Zhu, P. Liu, and D. Wu, “Program Characterization Using Runtime Values and Its Application to Software Plagiarism Detection”, inProc. of the ACM/IEEE 33rd Inter- national Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2011), Software Engineering in Practice Track, USA, 2011

    work page 2011

  37. [37]

    Behav- ior Based Software Theft Detection

    X. Wang, Y.-C. Jhi, S. Zhu, and P. Liu, “Behav- ior Based Software Theft Detection”,Proc. of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communi- cations Security (CCS’09), pp.280–290, USA, 2009. doi: 10.1145/1653662.1653696

    work page doi:10.1145/1653662.1653696 2009

  38. [38]

    DKISB: Dynamic key instruction sequence birth- mark for software plagiarism detection

    Z. Tian, Q. Zheng, T. Liu, and M. Fan, “DKISB: Dynamic key instruction sequence birth- mark for software plagiarism detection”,in Proc. 2013 IEEE 10th International Conference on High Per- formance Computing and Communications & 2013 IEEE International Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 619-–627, 2013. doi: 10.1109/HPCC.and.EUC.2013.93

    work page doi:10.1109/hpcc.and.euc.2013.93 2013

  39. [39]

    A dynamic birthmark for Java,

    D. Schuler, V. Dallmeier, and C. Lindig, “A dynamic birthmark for Java,” inProc. of the twenty-second IEEE/ACM international conference on Automated software engineering (ASE ’07), pp. 274-–283, 2007

    work page 2007

  40. [40]

    Dy- namic k-gram based software birthmark

    Y. Bai, X. Sun, G. Sun, X. Deng, and X. Zhou, “Dy- namic k-gram based software birthmark”, inProc. 19th Australian Softw. Eng. Conf., pp. 644-–649, 2008

    work page 2008

  41. [41]

    GPLAG: detec- tion of software plagiarism by program dependence graph analysis

    C. Liu, C. Chen, J. Han, P. S. Yu, “GPLAG: detec- tion of software plagiarism by program dependence graph analysis”,KDD ’06, pp. 872–881, 2006

    work page 2006

  42. [42]

    Program Logic Based Software Plagiarism Detection

    F. Zhang, D. Wu, P. Liu, and S. Zhu, “Program Logic Based Software Plagiarism Detection”,2014 IEEE 25th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pp. 66–77, 2014

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    De- tecting software theft via system call based birth- marks

    X. Wang, Y.-C. Jhi, S. Zhu, and P. Liu, “De- tecting software theft via system call based birth- marks”,Computer Security Applications Conference ACSAC’09., 2009

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    Current Sta- tus of Vizio Case

    Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc., “Current Sta- tus of Vizio Case”, Software Freedom Conservancy, [Online]. Available:https://sfconservancy.org/ copyleft-compliance/vizio.html. Accessed on: May 24, 2025

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    CASE NO.: 30-2021- 01226723-CU-BC-CJC. COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; and (2) DECLARA- TORY RELIEF

    R. G. Sanders, S. V. Vakili, J. A. Schlaff, D. N. Schultz, and S. P. Hoffman, “CASE NO.: 30-2021- 01226723-CU-BC-CJC. COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; and (2) DECLARA- TORY RELIEF”, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF OR- ANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER. [Online]. Available:https://sfconservancy.org/static/ docs/software-freedom-conser...

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    IBM Cor- poration v. Teraproc Inc. (7:16-cv-07989)

    District Court S.D. New York, “IBM Cor- poration v. Teraproc Inc. (7:16-cv-07989)”, CourtListener. [Online]. Available:https: //www.courtlistener.com/docket/4524777/ibm- corporation-v-teraproc-inc/. Accessed on: May 24, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Plagiarism in Programming Assignments

    M. Joy and M. Luck, “Plagiarism in Programming Assignments”, University of Warwick. Department of Computer Science. (Department of Computer Science Research Report). (Unpublished), 1998

    work page 1998

  48. [48]

    Educating computer pro- gramming students about plagiarism through use of a code similarity detection tool

    Tri Le, A. Carbone, J. Sheard, M. Schuhmacher, M. de Raath and C. Johnson, “Educating computer pro- gramming students about plagiarism through use of a code similarity detection tool”,2013 Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LATICE ’13), pp. 98–105, 2013. doi: 10.1109/LaTiCE.2013.37

    work page doi:10.1109/latice.2013.37 2013

  49. [49]

    A Generic Approach to Automatic Deobfus- cation of Executable Code

    B. Yadegari, B. Johannesmeyer, B. Whitely, and S. Debray, “A Generic Approach to Automatic Deobfus- cation of Executable Code”.In 2015 IEEE Sympo- sium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, USA, pp. 674- –691, 2015. doi: 10.1109/SP.2015.47. 18

    work page doi:10.1109/sp.2015.47 2015

  50. [50]

    A Taxon- omy of Obfuscating Transformations

    C. Collberg, C. Thomborson, and D. Low, “A Taxon- omy of Obfuscating Transformations”.Department of Computer Science, The University of Auckland. New Zealand, 1997. URL:http://www.cs.auckland.ac. nz/staff-cgi-bin/mjd/csTRcgi.pl?serial

    work page 1997

  51. [51]

    A survey on software clone detection research,

    C. Roy and J. Cordy, “A survey on software clone detection research,” School of Computing, TR 2007- 541, 2007

    work page 2007

  52. [52]

    A Static Java Birthmark Based on Control Flow Edges,

    H. -i. Lim, H. Park, S. Choi and T. Han, “A Static Java Birthmark Based on Control Flow Edges,” 2009 33rd Annual IEEE International Computer Soft- ware and Applications Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, 2009, pp. 413–420, doi: 10.1109/COMPSAC.2009.62

    work page doi:10.1109/compsac.2009.62 2009

  53. [53]

    Plagiarism detection for multithreaded soft- ware based on thread-aware software birthmarks,

    Z. Tian, Q. Zheng, T. Liu, M. Fan, X. Zhang and Z. Yang, “Plagiarism detection for multithreaded soft- ware based on thread-aware software birthmarks, ” In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC 2014). Associa- tion for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, 2014, pp. 304–313, doi: 10.1145/2597008.2597143. B Biography...

    work page doi:10.1145/2597008.2597143 2014