Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Can Large Language Models Identify Authorship? (2403.08213v2)

Published 13 Mar 2024 in cs.CL

Abstract: The ability to accurately identify authorship is crucial for verifying content authenticity and mitigating misinformation. LLMs have demonstrated an exceptional capacity for reasoning and problem-solving. However, their potential in authorship analysis remains under-explored. Traditional studies have depended on hand-crafted stylistic features, whereas state-of-the-art approaches leverage text embeddings from pre-trained LLMs. These methods, which typically require fine-tuning on labeled data, often suffer from performance degradation in cross-domain applications and provide limited explainability. This work seeks to address three research questions: (1) Can LLMs perform zero-shot, end-to-end authorship verification effectively? (2) Are LLMs capable of accurately attributing authorship among multiple candidates authors (e.g., 10 and 20)? (3) Can LLMs provide explainability in authorship analysis, particularly through the role of linguistic features? Moreover, we investigate the integration of explicit linguistic features to guide LLMs in their reasoning processes. Our assessment demonstrates LLMs' proficiency in both tasks without the need for domain-specific fine-tuning, providing explanations into their decision making via a detailed analysis of linguistic features. This establishes a new benchmark for future research on LLM-based authorship analysis.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (50)
  1. Shlomo Argamon. 2018. Computational forensic authorship analysis: Promises and pitfalls. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 5, 2 (2018), 7–37.
  2. Authorship verification applied to detection of compromised accounts on online social networks: A continuous approach. Multimedia Tools and Applications 76 (2017), 3213–3233.
  3. Georgios Barlas and Efstathios Stamatatos. 2020. Cross-domain authorship attribution using pre-trained language models. In Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations: 16th IFIP WG 12.5 International Conference, AIAI 2020, Neos Marmaras, Greece, June 5–7, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 16. Springer, 255–266.
  4. The pushshift reddit dataset. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Vol. 14. 830–839.
  5. Overview of pan 2020: Authorship verification, celebrity profiling, profiling fake news spreaders on twitter, and style change detection. In Experimental IR Meets Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Interaction: 11th International Conference of the CLEF Association, CLEF 2020, Thessaloniki, Greece, September 22–25, 2020, Proceedings 11. Springer, 372–383.
  6. Similarity learning for authorship verification in social media. In ICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2457–2461.
  7. Authorship attribution. In 2007 22nd international symposium on computer and information sciences. IEEE, 1–5.
  8. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877–1901.
  9. Florian Cafiero and Jean-Baptiste Camps. 2023. Who could be behind QAnon? Authorship attribution with supervised machine-learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.02078 (2023).
  10. Carole E Chaski. 2005. Who’s at the keyboard? Authorship attribution in digital evidence investigations. International journal of digital evidence 4, 1 (2005), 1–13.
  11. Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10555 (2020).
  12. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018).
  13. Maciej Eder. 2015. Does size matter? Authorship attribution, small samples, big problem. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30, 2 (2015), 167–182.
  14. BertAA: BERT fine-tuning for Authorship Attribution. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICON). 127–137.
  15. GPTQ: Accurate Post-Training Quantization for Generative Pre-trained Transformers. arXiv:2210.17323 [cs.LG]
  16. Tim Grant. 2022. The Idea of Progress in forensic authorship analysis. Cambridge University Press.
  17. Attributing the Bixby Letter using n-gram tracing. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 34, 3 (2019), 493–512.
  18. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03654 (2020).
  19. David I Holmes. 1994. Authorship attribution. Computers and the Humanities 28 (1994), 87–106.
  20. PART: Pre-trained Authorship Representation Transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15373 (2022).
  21. Mistral 7B. arXiv:2310.06825 [cs.CL]
  22. Bryan Klimt and Yiming Yang. 2004. The enron corpus: A new dataset for email classification research. In Machine Learning: ECML 2004: 15th European Conference on Machine Learning, Pisa, Italy, September 20-24, 2004. Proceedings 15. Springer, 217–226.
  23. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), 22199–22213.
  24. The “fundamental problem” of authorship attribution. English Studies 93, 3 (2012), 284–291.
  25. Measuring Differentiability: Unmasking Pseudonymous Authors. Journal of Machine Learning Research 8, 6 (2007).
  26. Tharindu Kumarage and Huan Liu. 2023. Neural Authorship Attribution: Stylometric Analysis on Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07305 (2023).
  27. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019).
  28. Frederick Mosteller and David L Wallace. 1963. Inference in an authorship problem: A comparative study of discrimination methods applied to the authorship of the disputed Federalist Papers. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 58, 302 (1963), 275–309.
  29. Justifying recommendations using distantly-labeled reviews and fine-grained aspects. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and the 9th international joint conference on natural language processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). 188–197.
  30. Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. arXiv preprint arXiv:1107.4557 (2011).
  31. Learning Interpretable Style Embeddings via Prompting LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12696 (2023).
  32. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 21, 1 (2020), 5485–5551.
  33. Learning universal authorship representations. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 913–919.
  34. Effects of age and gender on blogging.. In AAAI spring symposium: Computational approaches to analyzing weblogs, Vol. 6. 199–205.
  35. Authorship attribution with topic models. Computational Linguistics 40, 2 (2014), 269–310.
  36. An investigation of supervised learning methods for authorship attribution in short hinglish texts using char & word n-grams. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.10281 (2018).
  37. Mining disinformation and fake news: Concepts, methods, and recent advancements. Disinformation, misinformation, and fake news in social media: Emerging research challenges and opportunities (2020), 1–19.
  38. User identity linkage across online social networks: A review. Acm Sigkdd Explorations Newsletter 18, 2 (2017), 5–17.
  39. Richard Sinnott and Zijian Wang. 2021. Linking user accounts across social media platforms. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 8th International Conference on Big Data Computing, Applications and Technologies (BDCAT’21). 18–27.
  40. Efstathios Stamatatos. 2009. A survey of modern authorship attribution methods. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology 60, 3 (2009), 538–556.
  41. Efstathios Stamatatos and Moshe Koppel. 2011. Plagiarism and authorship analysis: introduction to the special issue. Language Resources and Evaluation 45 (2011), 1–4.
  42. Harald Stiff and Fredrik Johansson. 2022. Detecting computer-generated disinformation. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics 13, 4 (2022), 363–383.
  43. Kalaivani Sundararajan and Damon Woodard. 2018. What represents “style” in authorship attribution?. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 2814–2822.
  44. The science of detecting llm-generated texts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07205 (2023).
  45. Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models. arXiv:2307.09288 [cs.CL]
  46. Authorship attribution for neural text generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP). 8384–8395.
  47. Same author or just same topic? towards content-independent style representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.04907 (2022).
  48. Jana Winter. 2019. Exclusive: FBI document warns conspiracy theories are a new domestic terrorism threat. Yahoo News 1 (2019).
  49. A survey on llm-gernerated text detection: Necessity, methods, and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14724 (2023).
  50. A survey on detection of llms-generated content. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15654 (2023).
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (3)
  1. Baixiang Huang (8 papers)
  2. Canyu Chen (26 papers)
  3. Kai Shu (88 papers)
Citations (8)