Authorship Impersonation via LLM Prompting does not Evade Authorship Verification Methods

Amidst the rising capabilities of generative AI to mimic specific human styles, this study investigates the ability of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs), including GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Claude Sonnet 3.5, to emulate the authorial signatures of prominent literary and political figures: Walt Whitman, William Wordsworth, Donald Trump, and Barack Obama. Utilizing a zero-shot prompting framework with strict thematic alignment, we generated synthetic corpora evaluated through a complementary framework combining transformer-based classification (BERT) and interpretable machine learning (XGBoost). Our methodology integrates Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) markers, perplexity, and readability indices to assess the divergence between AI-generated and human-authored text. Results demonstrate that AI-generated mimicry remains highly detectable, with XGBoost models trained on a restricted set of eight stylometric features achieving accuracy comparable to high-dimensional neural classifiers. Feature importance analyses identify perplexity as the primary discriminative metric, revealing a significant divergence in the stochastic regularity of AI outputs compared to the higher variability of human writing. While LLMs exhibit distributional convergence with human authors on low-dimensional heuristic features, such as syntactic complexity and readability, they do not yet fully replicate the nuanced affective density and stylistic variance inherent in the human-authored corpus. By isolating the specific statistical gaps in current generative mimicry, this study provides a comprehensive benchmark for LLM stylistic behavior and offers critical insights for authorship attribution in the digital humanities and social media.

Computational stylometry studies writing style through quantitative textual patterns, enabling applications such as authorship attribution, identity linking, and plagiarism detection. Despite the relevance of language modeling to these tasks, the pre-training of modern large language models (LLMs) has been underutilized in authorship attribution and verification. We introduce an unsupervised framework that uses the log-probabilities of an LLM to measure style transferability between two texts. This framework takes advantage of the extensive Causal Language Modeling (CLM) pre-training, one-shot capabilities and scale of LLMs, avoiding explicit supervision. Our methods substantially outperform prompting-based unsupervised baselines in authorship verification at similar model sizes, and is competitive with or improves contrastive baselines in most settings with sufficient model scale. We further observe strong performance across non-English languages. The effectiveness of the proposed framework improves consistently with increasing model scale. In the case of authorship verification, we propose an additional mechanism that increases test-time computation to improve accuracy; enabling flexible trade-offs between computational cost and task performance.

Personalized text generation aims to make LLMs write in a specific individual's style, yet existing benchmarks measure task accuracy or preference alignment rather than whether the model's output actually resembles the target author's writing. We introduce PersonalBench, a benchmark that evaluates inference-time personalization methods through three independent lenses: LUAR (a trained authorship verification model), an LLM-as-judge, and automated stylometrics. Across 50 authors, 1,000 generations, and two model families (Qwen 3, GLM-4), we find that personalization methods do produce author-differentiated output (LUAR discriminates target authors within generated text at AUC=0.918) but this differentiation never crosses the human-LLM boundary. All methods achieve LUAR similarity to real authors in the range 0.484-0.508, below the cross-author human floor of 0.626 (ceiling 0.756). The LLM's own authorship fingerprint dominates: generated text is more distant from any human author than random humans are from each other. Methods are statistically indistinguishable from each other on LUAR (spread 0.024) despite appearing differentiated on the LLM judge, a discrepancy we trace to circularity between trait extraction and profile extraction. We validate that LUAR reliably measures authorship in our corpus (AUC=0.76 single-post, 0.96 multi-post). We release PersonalBench as a calibrated measuring stick: inference-time personalization modulates the LLM's style but does not bridge the gap to human authorship.