Cited by 61Authorship Attribution and ProfilingText and Document Classification TechnologiesMisinformation and Its Impacts

Classification for Authorship of Tweets by Comparing Logistic Regression and Naive Bayes Classifiers

Aborisade, Opeyemi, Anwar, Mohd·2018·2018 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI)

Abstract

At a time when all it takes to open a Twitter account is a mobile phone, the act of authenticating information encountered on social media becomes very complex, especially when we lack measures to verify digital identities in the first place. Because the platform supports anonymity, fake news generated by dubious sources have been observed to travel much faster and farther than real news. Hence, we need valid measures to identify authors of misinformation to avert these consequences. Researchers propose different authorship attribution techniques to approach this kind of problem. However, because tweets are made up of only 280 characters, finding a suitable authorship attribution technique is a challenge. This research aims to classify authors of tweets by comparing machine learning methods like logistic regression and naive Bayes. The processes of this application are fetching of tweets, pre-processing, feature extraction, and developing a machine learning model for classification. This paper illustrates the text classification for authorship process using machine learning techniques. In total, there were 46,895 tweets used as both training and testing data, and unique features specific to Twitter were extracted. Several steps were done in the pre-processing phase, including removal of short texts, removal of stop-words and punctuations, tokenizing and stemming of texts as well. This approach transforms the pre-processed data into a set of feature vector in Python. Logistic…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/iri.2018.00049

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The challenge in social media stems from the brief nature of posts and a large pool of potential authors, making the attribution of short documents particularly difficult.

    “The challenge in social media stems from the brief nature of posts and a large pool of potential authors, making the attribution of short documents particularly difficult [Aborisade and Anwar, 2018;Seroussi et al., 2014;Theophilo et al., 2021].”

    From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Aborisade and Anwar, 2018

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 11 · Cited by 61

Authors
Aborisade, O., & Anwar, M.
Affiliations
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (US)
Venue
2018 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2018-07
Pages
269-276
OpenAlex
W2887147825
Cited by
61
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4
FWCI
2.24
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI) (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text and Document Classification Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
authorship attribution, tweets, text classification, logistic regression, naive Bayes, misinformation, fake news, social media, digital identity verification, feature extraction, text preprocessing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review