PreprintCited by 30Authorship Attribution and ProfilingTopic ModelingMental Health via Writing

Can Large Language Models Identify Authorship?

Open access
Huang, Baixiang, Chen, Canyu, Shu, Kai·2024·arXiv

Abstract

The ability to accurately identify authorship is crucial for verifying content authenticity and mitigating misinformation. Large Language Models (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 language models. 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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2403.08213

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • LLM effectiveness in authorship attribution decreases with an increasing number of candidate authors due to context length constraints.

    “their effectiveness decreases with an increasing number of candidate authors due to context length constraints [Huang et al., 2024]”

    From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Huang et al., 2024

    Section 4, Authorship Attribution (RQ2), reports that increasing candidate authors from 10 to 20 generally reduced performance, though the decline was less pronounced for LLMs. The same section says dataset inputs exceeded Llama 2’s context limit, but it does not attribute the observed performance decline to context-length constraints. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • LLM-based approaches can provide natural language explanations for their predictions, enhancing transparency compared to hidden text embeddings.

    “Another key advantage of LLM-based approaches is their ability to provide natural language explanations for their predictions, enhancing transparency compared to hidden text embeddings [Huang et al., 2024].”
  • LLMs possess the ability to identify the author of unknown text based on nuanced linguistic features, making it possible to conduct end-to-end authorship attribution.

    “Beyond feature extraction, LLMs possess the ability to identify the author of unknown text based on nuanced linguistic features, making it possible to conduct end-to-end authorship attribution [Huang et al., 2024].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. Sadia Afroz, Michael Brennan, and Rachel Greenstadt. 2012. Detecting hoaxes, frauds, and deception in writing style online. In 2012 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 461-475. IEEE.
  2. Shlomo Argamon. 2018. Computational forensic au- thorship analysis: Promises and pitfalls. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito, 5(2):7-37.
  3. Georgios Barlas and Efstathios Stamatatos. 2020. Cross- domain authorship attribution using pre-trained lan- guage 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, pages 255- 266. Springer.
  4. Jason Baumgartner, Savvas Zannettou, Brian Keegan, Megan Squire, and Jeremy Blackburn. 2020. The pushshift reddit dataset. In Proceedings of the inter- national AAAI conference on web and social media, volume 14, pages 830-839.
  5. Alimohammad Beigi, Zhen Tan, Nivedh Mudiam, Canyu Chen, Kai Shu, and Huan Liu. 2024. Model attribution in machine-generated disinformation: A domain generalization approach with supervised con- trastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21264. · arXiv
  6. Nicole Mariah Sharon Belvisi, Naveed Muhammad, and Fernando Alonso-Fernandez. 2020. Forensic authorship analysis of microblogging texts using n-grams and stylometric features. In 2020 8th In- ternational Workshop on Biometrics and Forensics (IWBF), pages 1-6. IEEE.
  7. Janek Bevendorff, Bilal Ghanem, Anastasia Giachanou, Mike Kestemont, Enrique Manjavacas, Ilia Markov, Maximilian Mayerl, Martin Potthast, Francisco Rangel, Paolo Rosso, et al. 2020. Overview of pan 2020: Authorship verification, celebrity profiling, profiling fake news spreaders on twitter, and style change detection. In Experimental IR Meets Multilin- guality, Multimodality, and Interaction: 11th Inter- national Conference of the CLEF Association, CLEF 2020, Thessaloniki, Greece, September 22-25, 2020, Proceedings 11, pages 372-383. Springer.
  8. Benedikt Boenninghoff, Robert M Nickel, Steffen Zeiler, and Dorothea Kolossa. 2019. Similarity learning for authorship verification in social media. In ICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE International Confer- ence on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 2457-2461. IEEE.
  9. Ilker Nadi Bozkurt, Ozgur Baghoglu, and Erkan Uyar. 2007. Authorship attribution. In 2007 22nd inter- national symposium on computer and information sciences, pages 1-5. IEEE.
  10. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.
  11. Florian Cafiero and Jean-Baptiste Camps. 2023. Who could be behind qanon? authorship attribution with supervised machine-learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.02078. · arXiv
  12. Carole E Chaski. 2005. Who's at the keyboard? au- thorship attribution in digital evidence investigations. International journal of digital evidence, 4(1):1-13.
  13. Canyu Chen, Baixiang Huang, Zekun Li, Zhaorun Chen, Shiyang Lai, Xiongxiao Xu, Jia-Chen Gu, Jin- dong Gu, Huaxiu Yao, Chaowei Xiao, Xifeng Yan, William Yang Wang, Philip Torr, Dawn Song, and Kai Shu. 2024. Can editing llms inject harm? arXiv preprint arXiv: 2407.20224. · arXiv
  14. Canyu Chen and Kai Shu. 2024a. Can LLM-generated misinformation be detected? In The Twelfth Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations.
  15. Canyu Chen and Kai Shu. 2024b. Combating misinfor- mation in the age of llms: Opportunities and chal- lenges. AI Magazine. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Canyu Chen, Haoran Wang, Matthew Shapiro, Yunyu Xiao, Fei Wang, and Kai Shu. 2022. Combating health misinformation in social media: Characteriza- tion, detection, intervention, and open issues. ArXiv preprint, abs/2211.05289. · arXiv
  17. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V Le, and Christopher D Manning. 2020. Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10555. · arXiv
  18. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understand- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. · arXiv
  19. Maciej Eder. 2015. Does size matter? authorship attri- bution, small samples, big problem. Digital Scholar- ship in the Humanities, 30(2):167-182.
  20. Maël Fabien, Esaú Villatoro-Tello, Petr Motlicek, and Shantipriya Parida. 2020. Bertaa: Bert fine-tuning for authorship attribution. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Natural Language Pro- cessing (ICON), pages 127-137.
  21. Elias Frantar, Saleh Ashkboos, Torsten Hoefler, and Dan Alistarh. 2023. Gptq: Accurate post-training quantization for generative pre-trained transformers. Preprint, arXiv:2210.17323. · arXiv
  22. Tim Grant. 2022. The Idea of Progress in forensic authorship analysis. Cambridge University Press.
  23. Jack Grieve, Isobelle Clarke, Emily Chiang, Hannah Gideon, Annina Heini, Andrea Nini, and Emily Waibel. 2019. Attributing the bixby letter using n- gram tracing. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34(3):493-512.
  24. Hans WA Hanley and Zakir Durumeric. 2024. Machine- made media: Monitoring the mobilization of machine-generated articles on misinformation and mainstream news websites. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, volume 18, pages 542-556.
  25. Charles R Harris, K Jarrod Millman, Stéfan J Van Der Walt, Ralf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cour- napeau, Eric Wieser, Julian Taylor, Sebastian Berg, Nathaniel J Smith, et al. 2020. Array programming with numpy. Nature, 585(7825):357-362.
  26. Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2020. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03654. · arXiv
  27. Baixiang Huang, Canyu Chen, and Kai Shu. 2024. Au- thorship attribution in the era of llms: Problems, methodologies, and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2408.08946. · arXiv
  28. Javier Huertas-Tato, Alvaro Huertas-Garcia, Alejandro Martin, and David Camacho. 2022. Part: Pre-trained authorship representation transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15373. · arXiv
  29. Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Men- sch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guil- laume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas Wang, Timothée Lacroix, and William El Sayed. 2023. Mistral 7b. Preprint, arXiv:2310.06825. · arXiv
  30. Bryan Klimt and Yiming Yang. 2004. The enron cor- pus: A new dataset for email classification research. In Machine Learning: ECML 2004: 15th European Conference on Machine Learning, Pisa, Italy, Septem- ber 20-24, 2004. Proceedings 15, pages 217-226.
  31. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yu- taka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199- 22213.
  32. Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Schler, Shlomo Argamon, and Yaron Winter. 2012. The "fundamental problem" of authorship attribution. English Studies, 93(3):284- 291.
  33. Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Schler, and Elisheva Bonchek- Dokow. 2007. Measuring differentiability: Unmask- ing pseudonymous authors. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 8(6).
  34. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Man- dar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining ap- proach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. · arXiv
  35. Sven Meyer zu Eissen, Benno Stein, and Marion Kulig. 2007. Plagiarism detection without reference collec- tions. In Advances in Data Analysis: Proceedings of the 30 th Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Klassifikation eV, Freie Universität Berlin, March 8-10, 2006, pages 359-366. Springer.
  36. Frederick Mosteller and David L Wallace. 1963. Infer- ence in an authorship problem: A comparative study of discrimination methods applied to the authorship of the disputed federalist papers. Journal of the Amer- ican Statistical Association, 58(302):275-309.
  37. Jianmo Ni, Jiacheng Li, and Julian McAuley. 2019. Jus- tifying recommendations using distantly-labeled re- views 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), pages 188-197.
  38. Myle Ott, Yejin Choi, Claire Cardie, and Jeffrey T Hancock. 2011. Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. arXiv preprint arXiv:1107.4557. · arXiv
  39. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32.
  40. Ajay Patel, Delip Rao, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2023. Learning interpretable style embeddings via prompt- ing llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12696. · arXiv
  41. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duch- esnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:2825-2830.
  42. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text trans- former. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485-5551.
  43. Rafael A Rivera-Soto, Olivia Elizabeth Miano, Juanita Ordonez, Barry Y Chen, Aleem Khan, Marcus Bishop, and Nicholas Andrews. 2021. Learning uni- versal authorship representations. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing, pages 913-919.
  44. Jonathan Schler, Moshe Koppel, Shlomo Argamon, and James W Pennebaker. 2006. Effects of age and gen- der on blogging. In AAAI spring symposium: Compu- tational approaches to analyzing weblogs, volume 6, pages 199-205.
  45. Yanir Seroussi, Ingrid Zukerman, and Fabian Bohn- ert. 2014. Authorship attribution with topic models. Computational Linguistics, 40(2):269-310.
  46. Abhay Sharma, Ananya Nandan, and Reetika Ral- han. 2018. An investigation of supervised learning methods for authorship attribution in short hinglish texts using char & word n-grams. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.10281. · arXiv
  47. Kai Shu, Suhang Wang, Dongwon Lee, and Huan Liu. 2020. Mining disinformation and fake news: Con- cepts, methods, and recent advancements. Disin- formation, misinformation, and fake news in social media: Emerging research challenges and opportu- nities, pages 1-19.
  48. Kai Shu, Suhang Wang, Jiliang Tang, Reza Zafarani, and Huan Liu. 2017. User identity linkage across online social networks: A review. Acm Sigkdd Explo- rations Newsletter, 18(2):5-17.
  49. 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 (BD- CAT'21), pages 18-27.
  50. Irene Solaiman, Zeerak Talat, William Agnew, Lama Ahmad, Dylan Baker, Su Lin Blodgett, Canyu Chen, Hal Daumé III, Jesse Dodge, Isabella Duan, et al. 2023. Evaluating the social impact of generative ai systems in systems and society. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05949. · arXiv
  51. Efstathios Stamatatos. 2009. A survey of modern au- thorship attribution methods. Journal of the Ameri- can Society for information Science and Technology, 60(3):538-556.
  52. Harald Stiff and Fredrik Johansson. 2022a. Detecting computer-generated disinformation. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 13(4):363- 383.
  53. Harald Stiff and Fredrik Johansson. 2022b. Detecting computer-generated disinformation. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 13(4):363- 383.
  54. Kalaivani Sundararajan and Damon Woodard. 2018. What represents "style" in authorship attribution? In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2814-2822.
  55. Ruixiang Tang, Yu-Neng Chuang, and Xia Hu. 2023. The science of detecting llm-generated texts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07205. · arXiv
  56. Adaku Uchendu, Thai Le, Kai Shu, and Dongwon Lee. 2020. Authorship attribution for neural text gener- ation. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 8384-8395.
  57. Bertie Vidgen, Adarsh Agrawal, Ahmed M Ahmed, Vic- tor Akinwande, Namir Al-Nuaimi, Najla Alfaraj, Elie Alhajjar, Lora Aroyo, Trupti Bavalatti, Borhane Blili- Hamelin, et al. 2024. Introducing v0. 5 of the ai safety benchmark from mlcommons. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12241. · arXiv
  58. Anna Wegmann, Marijn Schraagen, and Dong Nguyen. 2022. Same author or just same topic? towards content-independent style representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.04907. · arXiv
  59. Wes McKinney. 2010. Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python. In Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, pages 56 -61. · DOI
  60. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pier- ric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 con- ference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations, pages 38-45.
  61. Junchao Wu, Shu Yang, Runzhe Zhan, Yulin Yuan, Derek F Wong, and Lidia S Chao. 2023. A sur- vey on llm-gernerated text detection: Necessity, methods, and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14724. · arXiv
  62. Xianjun Yang, Liangming Pan, Xuandong Zhao, Haifeng Chen, Linda Petzold, William Yang Wang, and Wei Cheng. 2023. A survey on detection of llms- generated content. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15654. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, B., Chen, C., & Shu, K.
Affiliations
  • Illinois Institute of Technology (US)
  • Emory University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
445-460
OpenAlex
W4404781812
Cited by
30
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 2
FWCI
8.66
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2346158, 2241068, 2339198)
  • U.S. Department of Homeland Security (17STQAC00001-07-04)
  • Cisco Systems
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
authorship attribution, authorship verification, large language models, zero-shot learning, explainability, linguistic features, text embeddings, misinformation, domain generalization

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