Stylometry

We test whether authors have characteristic "fingerprints" in the information-theoretic novelty curves of their published works. Working with two corpora -- Books3 (52,796 books, 759 qualifying authors) and PG-19 (28,439 books, 1,821 qualifying authors) -- we find that authorial voice leaves measurable traces in how novelty unfolds across a text. The signal is multi-scale: at book level, scalar dynamics (mean novelty, speed, volume, circuitousness) identify 43% of authors significantly above chance; at chapter level, SAX motif patterns in sliding windows achieve 30x-above-chance attribution, far exceeding the scalar features that dominate at book level. These signals are complementary, not redundant. We show that the fingerprint is partly confounded with genre but persists within-genre for approximately one-quarter of authors. Classical authors (Twain, Austen, Kipling) show fingerprints comparable in strength to modern authors, suggesting the phenomenon is not an artifact of contemporary publishing conventions.

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.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has enabled powerful authorship inference capabilities, raising growing concerns about unintended deanonymization risks in textual data such as news articles. In this work, we introduce an LLM agent designed to evaluate and mitigate such risks through a structured, interpretable pipeline. Central to our framework is the proposed $\textit{SALA}$ (Stylometry-Assisted LLM Analysis) method, which integrates quantitative stylometric features with LLM reasoning for robust and transparent authorship attribution. Experiments on large-scale news datasets demonstrate that $\textit{SALA}$, particularly when augmented with a database module, achieves high inference accuracy in various scenarios. Finally, we propose a guided recomposition strategy that leverages the agent's reasoning trace to generate rewriting prompts, effectively reducing authorship identifiability while preserving textual meaning. Our findings highlight both the deanonymization potential of LLM agents and the importance of interpretable, proactive defenses for safeguarding author privacy.

Legal text generated by large language models (LLMs) can usually achieve reasonable factual accuracy, but it frequently fails to adhere to the specialised stylistic norms and linguistic conventions of legal writing. In order to improve stylistic quality, a crucial first step is to establish a reliable evaluation method. However, having legal experts manually develop such a metric is impractical, as the implicit stylistic requirements in legal writing practice are difficult to formalise into explicit rubrics. Meanwhile, existing automatic evaluation methods also fall short: reference-based metrics conflate semantic accuracy with stylistic fidelity, and LLM-as-a-judge evaluations suffer from opacity and inconsistency. To address these challenges, we introduce CLASE (Chinese LegAlese Stylistic Evaluation), a hybrid evaluation method that focuses on the stylistic performance of legal text. The method incorporates a hybrid scoring mechanism that combines 1) linguistic feature-based scores and 2) experience-guided LLM-as-a-judge scores. Both the feature coefficients and the LLM scoring experiences are learned from contrastive pairs of authentic legal documents and their LLM-restored counterparts. This hybrid design captures both surface-level features and implicit stylistic norms in a transparent, reference-free manner. Experiments on 200 Chinese legal documents show that CLASE achieves substantially higher alignment with human judgments than traditional metrics and pure LLM-as-a-judge methods. Beyond improved alignment, CLASE provides interpretable score breakdowns and suggestions for improvements, offering a scalable and practical solution for professional stylistic evaluation in legal text generation (Code and data for CLASE is available at: https://github.com/rexera/CLASE).

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.