Authorship Attribution

Stylistic personalization - making LLMs write in a specific individual's style, rather than merely adapting to task preferences - lacks evaluation grounded in authorship science. We show that grounding evaluation in authorship verification theory transforms what benchmarks can measure. Drawing on three measurement traditions - LUAR, a trained authorship verification model; an LLM-as-judge with decoupled trait matching; and classical function-word stylometrics - we evaluate four inference-time personalization methods across 50 authors and 1,000 generations. The theory-grounded metric, LUAR, provides what ad hoc alternatives cannot: calibrated baselines, with a human ceiling of 0.756 and a cross-author floor of 0.626, that give scores absolute meaning. All methods score below this floor, from 0.484 to 0.508, exposing an authorship gap invisible to uncalibrated metrics. The three metrics produce near-zero pairwise correlations, with absolute r less than 0.07, confirming that without theoretical grounding, metric choice determines conclusions: an LLM judge declares a clear winner while LUAR finds no meaningful differentiation. These findings demonstrate the theory-benchmark cycle in action: authorship theory exposes evaluation failures that ad hoc benchmarks miss.

Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly integrated into writing processes, challenging traditional notions of authorship, responsibility, and intellectual contribution. Current disclosure practices usually indicate whether AI was used, but rarely explain how it was used, where it intervened, or how its output was reviewed. This paper proposes a faceted model for representing AI-assisted text production at the levels of documents, chapters, sections, and paragraphs. The proposal introduces a core model based on Form, Generation, and Evaluation, and an extended model that adds Intent, Control, and Traceability. The model is positioned as a minimal operational baseline with extensibility toward higher-fidelity representations. A worked example based on the production of this article demonstrates applicability.

Handwritten Arabic manuscripts preserve the Arab world's intellectual and cultural heritage, and writer identification supports provenance, authenticity verification, and historical analysis. Using the Muharaf dataset of historical Arabic manuscripts, we evaluate writer identification from individual line images and, to the best of our knowledge, provide the first baselines reported under both line-level and page-disjoint evaluation protocols. Since the dataset is only partially labeled for writer identification, we manually verified and expanded writer labels in the public portion from 6,858 (28.00%) to 21,249 lines (86.75%) out of 24,495 line images, correcting inconsistencies and removing non-handwritten text. After further filtering, we retained 18,987 lines (77.51%). We propose a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)-based model with attention mechanisms for closed-set writer identification, including rare two-writer lines modeled as composite writer-pair classes. We benchmark fourteen configurations and conduct ablations across different feature extractors and training regimes. To assess generalization to unseen pages, the page-disjoint protocol assigns all lines from each page to a single split. Under the line-level protocol, a fine-tuned DenseNet201 with attention achieves 99.05% Top-1 accuracy, 99.73% Top-5 accuracy, and 97.44% F1-score. Under the more challenging page-disjoint protocol, the best observed results are 78.61% Top-1 accuracy, 87.79% Top-5 accuracy, and 66.55% F1-score, thus quantifying the impact of page-level cues. By expanding the Muharaf dataset's labeled subset and reporting both protocols, we provide a clearer benchmark and a practical resource for historians and linguists engaged with culturally and historically significant documents. The code and implementation details are available on GitHub.

AI research pipelines can now generate academic work that may satisfy existing peer review standards for quality, novelty, and methodological rigor. However, the publication system was built around the assumption that research is produced by human authors. It therefore lacks a clear way to evaluate work when the knowledge claim may be valid but the producer is partly or fully automated. This paper proposes a two-layer certification framework for AI-generated research. The first layer evaluates whether the knowledge claim is sound. The second layer evaluates the level of human contribution. This separation allows journals and conferences to assess pipeline-generated work more consistently without creating new institutions. The framework uses normative analysis, conceptual design, and dry-run validation against representative submission cases. It classifies human contribution into three categories: Category A, where the work is reachable by an automated pipeline; Category B, where human direction is required at identifiable stages; and Category C, where the work goes beyond current pipeline capability, especially at the problem-formulation stage. The paper also proposes dedicated benchmark slots for fully disclosed automated research. These slots would provide a transparent publication path and help reviewers calibrate judgments over time. The key argument is that publication has historically certified two things at once: that the knowledge is valid and that a human produced it. AI research pipelines separate these two claims. By decoupling knowledge certification from authorship attribution, the proposed framework responds to a structural change already underway. It can be implemented within existing editorial systems, works even when attribution is uncertain, and recognizes human frontier contribution based on epistemic value rather than human origin alone.

Multi-domain detection of the machine-generated code snippets in various programming languages is a challenging task. SemEval-2026 Task~13 copes with this challenge in various angles, as a binary detection problem as well as attribution of the source. Specifically, its subtasks also cover generator LLM family detection, as well as a hybrid code co-generated by humans and machines, or adversarially modified codes hiding its origin. Our submitted systems adjusted the existing mdok approach (focused on machine-generated text detection) to these specific kinds of problems by exploring various base models, more suitable for code understanding. The results indicate that the submitted systems are competitive in all three subtasks. However, the margins from the top-performing systems are significant, and thus further improvements are possible.

Learning robust representations of authorial style is crucial for authorship attribution and AI-generated text detection. However, existing methods often struggle with content-style entanglement, where models learn spurious correlations between authors' writing styles and topics, leading to poor generalization across domains. To address this challenge, we propose Explainable Authorship Variational Autoencoder (EAVAE), a novel framework that explicitly disentangles style from content through architectural separation-by-design. EAVAE first pretrains style encoders using supervised contrastive learning on diverse authorship data, then finetunes with a Variational Autoencoder (VEA) architecture using separate encoders for style and content representations. Disentanglement is enforced through a novel discriminator that not only distinguishes whether pairs of style/content representations belong to the same or different authors/content sources, but also generates natural language explanation for their decision, simultaneously mitigating confounding information and enhancing interpretability. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of EAVAE. On authorship attribution, we achieve state-of-the-art performance on various datasets, including Amazon Reviews, PAN21, and HRS. For AI-generated text detection, EAVAE excels in few-shot learning over the M4 dataset. Code and data repositories are available online\footnote{https://github.com/hieum98/avae} \footnote{https://huggingface.co/collections/Hieuman/document-level-authorship-datasets}.

This article introduces two new measures for authorship attribution - Rank-Turbulence Delta and Jensen-Shannon Delta - which generalise Burrows's classical Delta by applying distance functions designed for probabilistic distributions. We first set out the theoretical basis of the measures, contrasting centred and uncentred z-scoring of word-frequency vectors and re-casting the uncentred vectors as probability distributions. Building on this representation, we develop a token-level decomposition that renders every Delta distance numerically interpretable, thereby facilitating close reading and the validation of results. The effectiveness of the methods is assessed on four literary corpora in English, German, French and Russian. The English, German and French datasets are compiled from Project Gutenberg, whereas the Russian benchmark is the SOCIOLIT corpus containing 639 works by 89 authors spanning the eighteenth to the twenty-first centuries. Rank-Turbulence Delta attains attribution accuracy comparable with Cosine Delta; Jensen-Shannon Delta consistently matches or exceeds the performance of canonical Burrows's Delta. Finally, several established attribution algorithms are re-evaluated on the extended SOCIOLIT corpus, providing a realistic estimate of their robustness under pronounced temporal and stylistic variation.

In this study, we present the first comprehensive evaluation of modern LLMs - including GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-3.5-Turbo, Gemini 1.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3, Llama 3.2, and BERT - across three core social media analytics tasks on a Twitter (X) dataset: (I) Social Media Authorship Verification, (II) Social Media Post Generation, and (III) User Attribute Inference. For the authorship verification, we introduce a systematic sampling framework over diverse user and post selection strategies and evaluate generalization on newly collected tweets from January 2024 onward to mitigate "seen-data" bias. For post generation, we assess the ability of LLMs to produce authentic, user-like content using comprehensive evaluation metrics. Bridging Tasks I and II, we conduct a user study to measure real users' perceptions of LLM-generated posts conditioned on their own writing. For attribute inference, we annotate occupations and interests using two standardized taxonomies (IAB Tech Lab 2023 and 2018 U.S. SOC) and benchmark LLMs against existing baselines. Overall, our unified evaluation provides new insights and establishes reproducible benchmarks for LLM-driven social media analytics. The code and data are provided in the supplementary material and will also be made publicly available upon publication.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in scientific peer review, assisting with drafting, rewriting, expansion, and refinement. However, existing peer-review LLM detection methods largely treat authorship as a binary problem-human vs. AI-without accounting for the hybrid nature of modern review workflows. In practice, evaluative ideas and surface realization may originate from different sources, creating a spectrum of human-AI collaboration. In this work, we introduce PeerPrism, a large-scale benchmark of 20,690 peer reviews explicitly designed to disentangle idea provenance from text provenance. We construct controlled generation regimes spanning fully human, fully synthetic, and multiple hybrid transformations. This design enables systematic evaluation of whether detectors identify the origin of the surface text or the origin of the evaluative reasoning. We benchmark state-of-the-art LLM text detection methods on PeerPrism. While several methods achieve high accuracy on the standard binary task (human vs. fully synthetic), their predictions diverge sharply under hybrid regimes. In particular, when ideas originate from humans but the surface text is AI-generated, detectors frequently disagree and produce contradictory classifications. Accompanied by stylometric and semantic analyses, our results show that current detection methods conflate surface realization with intellectual contribution. Overall, we demonstrate that LLM detection in peer review cannot be reduced to a binary attribution problem. Instead, authorship must be modeled as a multidimensional construct spanning semantic reasoning and stylistic realization. PeerPrism is the first benchmark evaluating human-AI collaboration in these settings. We release all code, data, prompts, and evaluation scripts to facilitate reproducible research at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/PeerPrism.

In what way could a data breach involving government-issued IDs such as passports, driver's licenses, etc., rival a random voluntary disclosure on a nondescript social-media platform? At first glance, the former appears more significant, and that is a valid assessment. The disclosed data could contain an individual's date of birth and address; for all intents and purposes, a leak of that data would be disastrous. Given the threat, the latter scenario involving an innocuous online post seems comparatively harmless -- or does it? From that post and others like it, a forensic linguist could stylometrically uncover equivalent pieces of information, estimating an age range for the author (adolescent or adult) and narrowing down their geographical location (specific country). While not an exact science -- the determinations are statistical -- stylometry can reveal comparable, though noticeably diluted, information about an individual. To prevent an ID from being breached, simply sharing it as little as possible suffices. Preventing the leakage of personal information from written text requires a more complex solution: adversarial stylometry. In this paper, we explore how performing homoglyph substitution -- the replacement of characters with visually similar alternatives (e.g., "h" $\texttt{[U+0068]}$ $\rightarrow$ "h" $\texttt{[U+04BB]}$) -- on text can degrade stylometric systems.

In this paper, we introduce GhostWriteBench, a dataset for LLM authorship attribution. It comprises long-form texts (50K+ words per book) generated by frontier LLMs, and is designed to test generalisation across multiple out-of-distribution (OOD) dimensions, including domain and unseen LLM author. We also propose TRACE -- a novel fingerprinting method that is interpretable and lightweight -- that works for both open- and closed-source models. TRACE creates the fingerprint by capturing token-level transition patterns (e.g., word rank) estimated by another lightweight language model. Experiments on GhostWriteBench demonstrate that TRACE achieves state-of-the-art performance, remains robust in OOD settings, and works well in limited training data scenarios.

This paper replicates and extends the system used in the AuTexTification shared task for authorship attribution of machine-generated texts. Exact replication was not possible because of differences in data splits, model availability, and implementation details, which we document as a case study in reproducibility. We tested newer multilingual language models (mDeBERTa-v3-base, Qwen, mGPT) and added 26 document-level stylometric features, using ablation, permutation importance, and SHAP analysis to assess feature influence. A single shared configuration was applied to both English and Spanish across Subtask 1 and Subtask 2. Averaged over three random seeds, the shared multilingual configuration performs comparably to or better than the language-specific baseline, with the clearest gains on model attribution (Subtask 2). The additional stylometric features yield small improvements, led by lexical diversity, but their contribution falls within seed variance once predictability-based probabilities are included, which remain the dominant signal. The study also shows that clear documentation is important for reliable replication and fair comparison of systems.

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.