Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

Grammar as a Behavioral Biometric: Using Cognitively Motivated Grammar Models for Authorship Verification

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-24 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A cognitively motivated grammar model verifies authorship more accurately than neural networks by computing a likelihood ratio called LambdaG.

desk verdict LambdaG is a grammar-based AV method with broad empirical tests but thin methodological detail on model construction and stats. read the letter →

arxiv 2403.08462 v3 submitted 2024-03-13 cs.CL cs.LG

Andrea Nini , Oren Halvani , Lukas Graner , Sophie Titze , Valerio Gherardi , Shunichi Ishihara This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords authorshipverificationcognitivelinguisticsgrammarmodelsbehavioralbiometricslikelihoodratiotextforensicsdigitalexplainablemethods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that modeling an author's grammar according to Cognitive Linguistics principles and computing LambdaG—the ratio of how likely a text is under that author's grammar versus a reference population's grammar—outperforms seven baseline methods, including neural network approaches, on twelve datasets. This method treats grammar as a behavioral biometric unique to individuals. A sympathetic reader would care because it supplies a simpler, more interpretable alternative to complex black-box systems for determining whether two texts share an author in digital forensics contexts. The approach also proves robust to minor changes in the reference population and yields visualizations that support explainability.

What carries the argument

LambdaG, the ratio of likelihoods of a document under a candidate author's grammar model versus a reference population grammar model; it quantifies how distinctively the text fits the candidate's grammar.

What would settle it

A new dataset or reference population composition where LambdaG fails to match or exceed the performance of the seven baselines, or where small reference-group changes cause large drops in accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

LambdaG is defined as the ratio of the likelihood of a document given the candidate author's grammar model to the likelihood given a reference population's grammar model. When the grammar models follow Cognitive Linguistics principles, this ratio delivers superior authorship verification performance across twelve datasets relative to seven baselines that include neural network-based methods. The paper states that the performance advantage arises because the method aligns with theories predicting that a person's grammar functions as a behavioral biometric.

Load-bearing premise

That cognitively motivated grammar models can be built to capture stable individual differences in authorship and that the resulting likelihood ratios validly indicate whether two texts share an author.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Authorship verification in digital text forensics can rely on grammar models rather than high-complexity neural methods.
  • The method remains effective even when the reference population varies slightly in composition.
  • Interpretability improves because the grammar models support visualizations of verification decisions.
  • The technique rests on compatibility with Cognitive Linguistics predictions that grammar acts as a behavioral biometric.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Likelihood-ratio methods grounded in cognitive models of language could extend to verifying other stable individual traits in text beyond grammar.
  • The approach might be tested for robustness on very short documents or in languages with different grammatical structures.
  • Hybrid systems could combine LambdaG with non-grammar features while preserving the cognitive grounding.
  • The same modeling strategy might apply to related forensic tasks such as detecting text generated by language models.
  • keywords
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes LambdaG, a method for authorship verification that constructs cognitively motivated grammar models for individual authors and computes the likelihood ratio λ_G of a document under the candidate grammar versus a reference population grammar. It reports that this approach outperforms seven baselines (including neural AV methods) across twelve datasets, is robust to small changes in the reference population, and provides interpretable visualizations, attributing effectiveness to compatibility with Cognitive Linguistics theories that treat grammar as a behavioral biometric.

Significance. If the reported empirical results hold under scrutiny, the work supplies a simpler, more explainable alternative to neural methods in digital text forensics while grounding the approach in established cognitive theories. The multi-dataset evaluation and explicit likelihood-ratio formulation are strengths that could support falsifiable follow-up work; the robustness claim to reference-population composition is also a concrete, testable contribution.

major comments (1)
  1. [Experimental Evaluation] Experimental section: the central claim of superior performance is load-bearing, yet the manuscript provides insufficient detail on the precise train/test splits, statistical significance testing (e.g., paired t-tests or McNemar), and controls for genre or length confounds across the twelve datasets; without these the superiority result cannot be fully assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method] Notation for λ_G and the reference-population grammar should be defined once in a dedicated subsection rather than introduced piecemeal.
  2. [Results] Figure captions for the grammar visualizations should explicitly state the units on each axis and the exact subset of data used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on the experimental evaluation. We address the single major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental Evaluation] Experimental section: the central claim of superior performance is load-bearing, yet the manuscript provides insufficient detail on the precise train/test splits, statistical significance testing (e.g., paired t-tests or McNemar), and controls for genre or length confounds across the twelve datasets; without these the superiority result cannot be fully assessed.

    Authors: We agree that the experimental section would benefit from greater explicitness to support reproducibility and allow full assessment of the performance claims. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that specifies the exact train/test splits (including any cross-validation folds or hold-out ratios) for each of the twelve datasets. We will also report the results of statistical significance tests, including paired t-tests on performance metrics across repeated runs and McNemar’s test for pairwise comparisons against each baseline. Finally, we will include additional analyses that control for text length and genre confounds, such as performance stratified by length bins and by dataset genre where the data permit. These revisions will directly address the concerns raised. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained and empirically evaluated

full rationale

The paper defines LambdaG explicitly as a likelihood ratio between a candidate grammar model and a reference population grammar, motivated by Cognitive Linguistics principles. Performance is assessed via direct empirical comparison on twelve datasets against seven external baselines (including neural methods), with no reduction of the central result to a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, self-citation chain, or definitional equivalence. The compatibility argument with biometric theories is presented as post-hoc interpretation rather than a load-bearing premise that forces the outcome. No quoted equations or steps exhibit the enumerated circular patterns.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides limited information; the method assumes grammar models can be built and likelihoods computed, but specific free parameters and axioms cannot be fully enumerated without the full text.

free parameters (1)
  • Grammar model parameters
    Likely the grammar models are fitted to author texts, but details unknown from abstract.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption A person's grammar is unique and can be modeled probabilistically based on Cognitive Linguistics principles.
    Central to building the author grammar and population grammar for the likelihood ratio.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Grammar as a Behavioral Biometric: Using Cognitively Motivated Grammar Models for Authorship Verification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2403.08462

@misc{pith2026240308462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Grammar as a Behavioral Biometric: Using Cognitively Motivated Grammar Models for Authorship Verification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2403.08462}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2403.08462}
}
abstract

Authorship Verification (AV) is a key area of research in digital text forensics, which addresses the fundamental question of whether two texts were written by the same person. Numerous computational approaches have been proposed over the last two decades in an attempt to address this challenge. However, existing AV methods often suffer from high complexity, low explainability and especially from a lack of clear scientific justification. We propose a simpler method based on modeling the grammar of an author following Cognitive Linguistics principles. These models are used to calculate $\lambda_G$ (LambdaG): the ratio of the likelihoods of a document given the candidate's grammar versus given a reference population's grammar. Our empirical evaluation, conducted on twelve datasets and compared against seven baseline methods, demonstrates that LambdaG achieves superior performance, including against several neural network-based AV methods. LambdaG is also robust to small variations in the composition of the reference population and provides interpretable visualizations, enhancing its explainability. We argue that its effectiveness is due to the method's compatibility with Cognitive Linguistics theories predicting that a person's grammar is a behavioral biometric.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2403.08462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic overview of our proposed AV method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 95% Confidence Intervals for Accuracy. uncalibrated. This means that although higher values of λG do correctly correspond to Y-cases, the scale of variation does not reflect the expectations of a perfectly calibrated system, where λG = 0 means an inconclusive result, a positive value suggests a Y-case, and a negative value suggests an N-case. When λG is turned into ΛG by fitting a logistic regression on training dat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variation in Accuracy depending on the number of repetitions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The loss in Accuracy (top) and Cllr (bottom) results for cross-corpus comparison, i. e., evaluating on Base Corpus while using reference texts Dref from Reference Corpus. Diagonal bold values denote the original Accuracy and Cllr, respectively. Darker shades denote a g…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The POSNoise algorithm. Details on the notation can be found in [53]. Authorship Verification constitutes a similarity detection problem in which the subject of the similarity determination is the language of the author rather than other document aspects such as the to…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Normalisation-Based Likelihood Ratio Estimation for Forensic Authorship Verification

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Hapax and square-root corrections turn uncalibrated LambdaG scores into well-calibrated likelihood ratios for forensic authorship verification, matching logistic regression on fifteen corpora without training a calibr...

  2. Authorship Verification of Transcribed German-Language Videos

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    On three small German video-transcript corpora, character/token n-gram verification methods beat transformer-based methods, especially after topic masking.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 138 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A. O. Agbeyangi, O. Abegunde, and S. I. Eludiora. Authorship Verification of Yorùbá Blog Posts using Character N-grams. In2020 International Conference in Mathematics, Computer Engineering and Computer Science (ICMCECS), pages 1–6, March 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Colin Aitken, Charles E. H. Berger, John S. Buckleton, Christophe Champod, James Curran, A. P. Dawid, Ian W. Evett, Peter Gill, Joaquin Gonzalez-Rodriguez, Graham Jackson, Ate Kloosterman, Tina Lovelock, David Lucy, Pierre Margot, Louise McKenna, Didier Meuwly, Cedric Neumann, Niamh Nic Daeid, Anders Nordgaard, Roberto Puch-Solis, Birgitta Rasmusson, Mike...

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists

    Colin Aitken, Franco Taroni, and Silvia Bozza. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. Wiley, Chichester, 01 2021. DOI: 10.1002/9781119245438

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119245438 2021

  4. [4]

    Al-Khatib and Juman K

    Mahmoud A. Al-Khatib and Juman K. Al-qaoud. Authorship Verification of Opinion Articles in Online Newspapers Using the Idiolect of Author: A Comparative Study.Information, Communi- cation & Society, 24(11):1603–1621, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    BiBERT-AV: Enhancing Author- ship Verification Through Siamese Networks with Pre-trained BERT and Bi-LSTM

    Amirah Almutairi, BooJoong Kang, and Nawfal Al Hashimy. BiBERT-AV: Enhancing Author- ship Verification Through Siamese Networks with Pre-trained BERT and Bi-LSTM. In Guojun Wang, Haozhe Wang, Geyong Min, Nektarios Georgalas, and Weizhi Meng, editors,Ubiquitous Security - Third International Conference, UbiSec 2023, Exeter, UK, November 1-3, 2023, Revised ...

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    K. A. Apoorva and S. Sangeetha. Deep Neural Network and Model-based Clustering Technique for Forensic Electronic Mail Author Attribution.SN Applied Sciences, 3(3):348, February 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    The Apricity - A European Cultural Community.https://theapricity.com, 2018

    The Apricity. The Apricity - A European Cultural Community.https://theapricity.com, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Computational Forensic Authorship Analysis: Promises and Pitfalls

    Shlomo Engelson Argamon. Computational Forensic Authorship Analysis: Promises and Pitfalls. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 5(2):7–37, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 138 references
  1. [9]

    American Statistical Association Position on Statistical State- ments for Forensic Evidence

    American Statistical Association. American Statistical Association Position on Statistical State- ments for Forensic Evidence. Technical report, American Statistical Association (ASA), 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Overview of PAN 2024: Multi-Author Writing Style Analy- sis, Multilingual Text Detoxification, Oppositional Thinking Analysis, and Generative AI Author- ship Verification

    Abinew Ali Ayele, Nikolay Babakov, Janek Bevendorff, Xavier Bonet Casals, Berta Chulvi, Daryna Dementieva, Ashaf Elnagar, Dayne Freitag, Maik Fröbe, Damir Korenčić, Maximilian Mayerl, Daniil Moskovskiy, Animesh Mukherjee, Alexander Panchenko, Martin Potthast, Francisco Rangel,...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Outside the Cave of Shadows: Using Syntactic Annotation To Enhance Authorship Attribution

    Harald Baayen, Hans Van Halteren, and Fiona Tweedie. Outside the Cave of Shadows: Using Syntactic Annotation To Enhance Authorship Attribution. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 11(3):121–132, 1996

    1996

  4. [12]

    Author Identification Using Multi-headed Recurrent Neural Networks

    Douglas Bagnall. Author Identification Using Multi-headed Recurrent Neural Networks. In Cap- pellato et al. [28]

  5. [13]

    Language Is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper.Language Learning, 59:1–26, 2009

    Clay Beckner, Nick C Ellis, Richard Blythe, John Holland, Joan Bybee, Jinyun Ke, Morten H Chris- tiansen, Diane Larsen-Freeman, William Croft, and Tom Schoenemann. Language Is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper.Language Learning, 59:1–26, 2009. Citation Key: Beckner2009. 34

    2009

  6. [14]

    Bias Analysis and Mit- igation in the Evaluation of Authorship Verification

    Janek Bevendorff, Matthias Hagen, Benno Stein, and Martin Potthast. Bias Analysis and Mit- igation in the Evaluation of Authorship Verification. In Anna Korhonen, David R. Traum, and Lluís Màrquez, editors,Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational...

    2019

  7. [15]

    Generalizing Unmasking for Short Texts

    Janek Bevendorff, Benno Stein, Matthias Hagen, and Martin Potthast. Generalizing Unmasking for Short Texts. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Sho...

    2019

  8. [16]

    Voight- Kampff

    Janek Bevendorff, Matti Wiegmann, Jussi Karlgren, Luise Dürlich, Evangelia Gogoulou, Aarne Talman, Efstathios Stamatatos, Martin Potthast, and Benno Stein. Overview of the “Voight- Kampff” Generative AI Authorship Verification Task at PAN and ELOQUENT 2024. In Guglielmo Faggio...

    2024

  9. [17]

    José Nilo G. Binongo. Who Wrote the 15th Book of Oz? An Application of Multivariate Analysis to Authorship Attribution.CHANCE, 16(2):9–17, 2003

    2003

  10. [18]

    The Importance of Suppressing Domain Style in Authorship Analysis

    Sebastian Bischoff, Niklas Deckers, Marcel Schliebs, Ben Thies, Matthias Hagen, Efstathios Sta- matatos, Benno Stein, and Martin Potthast. The Importance of Suppressing Domain Style in Authorship Analysis. CoRR, abs/2005.14714, 2020

    2005

  11. [19]

    Boenninghoff, Steffen Hessler, Dorothea Kolossa, and Robert M

    Benedikt T. Boenninghoff, Steffen Hessler, Dorothea Kolossa, and Robert M. Nickel. Explainable Authorship Verification in Social Media via Attention-based Similarity Learning. In Chaitanya K. Baru, Jun Huan, Latifur Khan, Xiaohua Hu, Ronay Ak, Yuanyuan Tian, Roger S. Barga, Ca...

    2019

  12. [20]

    Boenninghoff, Robert M

    Benedikt T. Boenninghoff, Robert M. Nickel, Steffen Zeiler, and Dorothea Kolossa. Similarity Learning for Authorship Verification in Social Media. InIEEE International Conference on Acous- tics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP 2019, Brighton, United Kingdom, May 12-17, 20...

    2019

  13. [21]

    Likelihood Ratios for Categorical Evidence: Comparison of LR Models Applied to Gunshot Residue Data.Law, Probability and Risk, 16(2-3):71–90, 09 2017

    Annabel Bolck and Amalia Stamouli. Likelihood Ratios for Categorical Evidence: Comparison of LR Models Applied to Gunshot Residue Data.Law, Probability and Risk, 16(2-3):71–90, 09 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Different Likelihood Ratio Approaches To Evaluate the Strength of Evidence of MDMA Tablet Comparisons

    Annabel Bolck, Céline Weyermann, Laurence Dujourdy, Pierre Esseiva, and Jorrit Van Den Berg. Different Likelihood Ratio Approaches To Evaluate the Strength of Evidence of MDMA Tablet Comparisons. Forensic Science International, 191(1-3):42–51, 10 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Authorship Verification for Short Messages Using Stylometry

    Marcelo Luiz Brocardo, Issa Traoré, Sherif Saad, and Isaac Woungang. Authorship Verification for Short Messages Using Stylometry. InInternational Conference on Computer, Information and Telecommunication Systems, CITS 2013, Athens, Greece, May 7-8, 2013, pages 1–6. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  16. [24]

    Authorship Verification of E-Mail and Tweet Messages Applied for Continuous Authentication.Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 81(8):1429 – 1440, 2015

    Marcelo Luiz Brocardo, Issa Traore, and Isaac Woungang. Authorship Verification of E-Mail and Tweet Messages Applied for Continuous Authentication.Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 81(8):1429 – 1440, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Marcelo Luiz Brocardo, Issa Traoré, Isaac Woungang, and Mohammad S. Obaidat. Authorship Verification using Deep Belief Network Systems.Int. J. Communication Systems, 30(12), 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Application-Independent Evaluation of Speaker Detection

    Niko Brümmer and Johan du Preez. Application-Independent Evaluation of Speaker Detection. Computer Speech & Language, 20(2):230–275, 2006. Odyssey 2004: The speaker and Language Recognition Workshop

    2006

  19. [27]

    Language, Usage and Cognition

    Joan Bybee. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010

    2010

  20. [28]

    Linda Cappellato, Nicola Ferro, Gareth J. F. Jones, and Eric San Juan, editors.Working Notes for CLEF 2015 Conference, Toulouse, France, September 8–11, 2015, volume 1391 ofCEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2015. 35

    2015

  21. [29]

    Authorship Verification, Average Similarity Analysis

    Daniel Castro Castro, Yaritza Adame Arcia, María Pelaez Brioso, and Rafael Muñoz Guillena. Authorship Verification, Average Similarity Analysis. In Proceedings of the International Con- ference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, pages 84–90. INCOMA Ltd. Shoumen, B...

    2015

  22. [30]

    Catoggio, J

    D. Catoggio, J. Bunford, D. Taylor, G. Wevers, K. Ballantyne, and R. Morgan. An Introduc- tory Guide to Evaluative Reporting in Forensic Science.Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(sup1):S247–S251, February 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    C.E. Chaski. Empirical Evaluations of Language-Based Author Identification Techniques.Forensic Linguistics, 8(1):1–65, 2001

    2001

  24. [32]

    Chen and Joshua Goodman

    Stanley F. Chen and Joshua Goodman. An Empirical Study of Smoothing Techniques for Language Modeling. In Aravind K. Joshi and Martha Palmer, editors,34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 24-27 June 1996, University of California, Santa Cruz, Cal...

    1996

  25. [33]

    Chandramouli, and K

    Xiaoling Chen, Peng Hao, R. Chandramouli, and K. P. Subbalakshmi. Authorship Similarity Detection from Email Messages. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition, MLDM’11, pages 375–386, Berlin, Heidelberg,

  26. [34]

    Christiansen and Nick Chater

    Morten H. Christiansen and Nick Chater. The Now-or-Never Bottleneck: A Fundamental Con- straint on Language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39:e62, 04 2016. Publisher: Cambridge University Press Citation Key: Christiansen2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    All the News 2.0 — 2.7 Million News Articles and Essays from 27 American Publi- cations

    Components. All the News 2.0 — 2.7 Million News Articles and Essays from 27 American Publi- cations. https://components.one/datasets/all-the-news-2-news-articles-dataset , 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    UsingSubsampling To Estimate the Strength of Handwriting Evidence via Score-Based Likelihood Ratios.Forensic Science International, 216(1-3):146–157, 03 2012

    LindaJ.Davis, ChristopherP.Saunders, AmandaHepler, andJoAnnBuscaglia. UsingSubsampling To Estimate the Strength of Handwriting Evidence via Score-Based Likelihood Ratios.Forensic Science International, 216(1-3):146–157, 03 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Steven H. H. Ding, Benjamin C. M. Fung, and Mourad Debbabi. A Visualizable Evidence-Driven Approach for Authorship Attribution.ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 17(3), March 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning

    Dagmar Divjak. Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Language as a Phenomenon of the Third Kind.Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2):213– 229, 2020

    Ewa Dąbrowska. Language as a Phenomenon of the Third Kind.Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2):213– 229, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Drygajlo, M

    A. Drygajlo, M. Jessen, S. Gfrörer, I. Wagner, J. Vermeulen, T. Niemi, and Verlag für Polizeiwis- senschaft. Methodological Guidelines for Best Practice in Forensic Semiautomatic and Automatic Speaker Recognition. Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    Authorship Verification for Hired Plagiarism Detection

    Daniel Enriquez, Gage Christensen, Hayden Donovan, Jared Lam, Noah Wong, Sergiu Dascalu, David Feil-Seifer, and Emily Hand. Authorship Verification for Hired Plagiarism Detection. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Applied Computing & Information Technology,...

    2023

  35. [43]

    ENFSI guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science, 2015

    European Network of Forensic Science Institutes. ENFSI guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science, 2015. Version 3.0

    2015

  36. [44]

    Evett, G

    I.w. Evett, G. Jackson, J.A. Lambert, and S. McCrossan. The Impact of the Principles of Evidence Interpretation on the Structure and Content of Statements.Science & Justice, 40(4):233–239, 10 2000

    2000

  37. [45]

    CEUR-WS.org, 2014

    Pamela Forner, Roberto Navigli, Dan Tufis, and Nicola Ferro, editors.Working Notes for CLEF 2013 Conference, Valencia, Spain, September 23–26, 2013, volume 1179 ofCEUR Workshop Pro- ceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2014. 36

    2013

  38. [46]

    Language Models and Fusion for Au- thorship Attribution.Information Processing & Management, 56(6):102061, 11 2019

    Olga Fourkioti, Symeon Symeonidis, and Avi Arampatzis. Language Models and Fusion for Au- thorship Attribution.Information Processing & Management, 56(6):102061, 11 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Al-Khateeb, Martin Potthast, Zinnar Ghasem, Mitul Shukla, and Emma Short

    Ingo Frommholz, Haider M. Al-Khateeb, Martin Potthast, Zinnar Ghasem, Mitul Shukla, and Emma Short. On Textual Analysis and Machine Learning for Cyberstalking Detection.Datenbank- Spektrum, 16(2):127–135, 2016

    2016

  40. [48]

    Lane, Steve Croker, Peter C-H

    Fernand Gobet, Peter C.R. Lane, Steve Croker, Peter C-H. Cheng, Gary Jones, Iain Oliver, and Julian M Pine. Chunking Mechanisms in Human Learning.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6):236– 243, 2001. Citation Key: Gobet2001

    2001

  41. [49]

    Recent Trends in Digital Text Forensics and its Evaluation

    Tim Gollub, Martin Potthast, Anna Beyer, Matthias Busse, Francisco Rangel, Paolo Rosso, Efs- tathios Stamatatos, and Benno Stein. Recent Trends in Digital Text Forensics and its Evaluation. In Pamela Forner, Henning Müller, Roberto Paredes, Paolo Rosso, and Benno Stein, editor...

    2013

  42. [50]

    Universal Dependencies and Author Attribution of Short Texts with Syntax Alone

    Robert Gorman. Universal Dependencies and Author Attribution of Short Texts with Syntax Alone. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 16(2), 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    Practice-Oriented Authorship Verification

    Oren Halvani. Practice-Oriented Authorship Verification. PhD thesis, Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    TextUnitLib: A Python Library That Allows Easy Extraction of a Variety of Text Units Within Texts.https://github.com/Halvani/TextUnitLib, 2024

    Oren Halvani. TextUnitLib: A Python Library That Allows Easy Extraction of a Variety of Text Units Within Texts.https://github.com/Halvani/TextUnitLib, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    POSNoise: An Effective Countermeasure Against Topic Biases in Authorship Analysis

    Oren Halvani and Lukas Graner. POSNoise: An Effective Countermeasure Against Topic Biases in Authorship Analysis. InProceedings of the 16th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, ARES ’21, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery

    2021

  46. [54]

    Cross-Domain Authorship Verification Based on Topic Agnostic Features

    Oren Halvani, Lukas Graner, and Roey Regev. Cross-Domain Authorship Verification Based on Topic Agnostic Features. In Linda Cappellato, Carsten Eickhoff, Nicola Ferro, and Aurélie Névéol, editors,Working Notes of CLEF 2020 - Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, Thessal...

    2020

  47. [55]

    TAVeer: An Interpretable Topic-Agnostic Author- ship Verification Method

    Oren Halvani, Lukas Graner, and Roey Regev. TAVeer: An Interpretable Topic-Agnostic Author- ship Verification Method. In Melanie Volkamer and Christian Wressnegger, editors,ARES 2020: The 15th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, Virtual Event, I...

    2020

  48. [56]

    Authorship Verification in the Absence of Explicit Features and Thresholds

    Oren Halvani, Lukas Graner, and Inna Vogel. Authorship Verification in the Absence of Explicit Features and Thresholds. In Gabriella Pasi, Benjamin Piwowarski, Leif Azzopardi, and Allan Han- bury, editors,Advances in Information Retrieval, pages 454–465. Springer International...

    2018

  49. [57]

    On the Usefulness of Compression Models for Authorship Verification

    Oren Halvani, Christian Winter, and Lukas Graner. On the Usefulness of Compression Models for Authorship Verification. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, ARES ’17, pages 54:1–54:10, New York, NY, USA, 2017. ACM

    2017

  50. [58]

    Assessing the Applicability of Authorship VerificationMethods

    Oren Halvani, Christian Winter, and Lukas Graner. Assessing the Applicability of Authorship VerificationMethods. InProceedings of the 14th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, ARES 2019, Canterbury, UK, August 26-29, 2019, pages 38:1–38:10. ACM, 2019

    2019

  51. [59]

    Recognition of Compromised Accounts on Twitter

    Rodrigo Augusto Igawa, Alex Marino Gonçalves de Almeida, Bruno Bogaz Zarpelão, and Sylvio Barbon. Recognition of Compromised Accounts on Twitter. In Sean W. M. Siqueira and Sérgio T. Carvalho, editors, Proceedings of the annual conference on Brazilian Symposium on Information ...

    2015

  52. [60]

    Khan, Benjamin C

    Farkhund Iqbal, Liaquat A. Khan, Benjamin C. M. Fung, and Mourad Debbabi. E-mail Authorship Verification for Forensic Investigation. In Sung Y. Shin, Sascha Ossowski, Michael Schumacher, Mathew J. Palakal, and Chih-Cheng Hung, editors,Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on A...

    2010

  53. [61]

    A Forensic Authorship Classification in SMS Messages: A Likelihood Ratio Based Approach Using N-gram

    Shunichi Ishihara. A Forensic Authorship Classification in SMS Messages: A Likelihood Ratio Based Approach Using N-gram. In Diego Molla and David Martinez, editors,Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2011, pages 47–56, Canberra, Australia, ...

    2011

  54. [62]

    Score-Based LikelihoodRatios forLinguisticTextEvidence With aBag-of-Words Model

    ShunichiIshihara. Score-Based LikelihoodRatios forLinguisticTextEvidence With aBag-of-Words Model. Forensic Science International, 327:110980, 2021. Publisher: Elsevier

    2021

  55. [63]

    Weight of Authorship Evidence With Multiple Categories of Stylometric Fea- tures: A Multinomial-Based Discrete Model.Science & Justice, 63(2):181–199, March 2023

    Shunichi Ishihara. Weight of Authorship Evidence With Multiple Categories of Stylometric Fea- tures: A Multinomial-Based Discrete Model.Science & Justice, 63(2):181–199, March 2023

    2023

  56. [64]

    Likelihood Ratio Estimation for Authorship Text Evidence: An Empirical Comparison of Score- and Feature-Based Methods.Forensic Science International, 334:111268, May 2022

    Shunichi Ishihara and Michael Carne. Likelihood Ratio Estimation for Authorship Text Evidence: An Empirical Comparison of Score- and Feature-Based Methods.Forensic Science International, 334:111268, May 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    Validation in Forensic Text Comparison: Issues and Opportunities.Languages, 9(2):47, February 2024

    Shunichi Ishihara, Sonia Kulkarni, Michael Carne, Sabine Ehrhardt, and Andrea Nini. Validation in Forensic Text Comparison: Issues and Opportunities.Languages, 9(2):47, February 2024. Number: 2 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    2024

  58. [66]

    Estimating the Strength of Authorship Evidence With a Deep-Learning-Based Approach

    Shunichi Ishihara, Satoru Tsuge, Mitsuyuki Inaba, and Wataru Zaitsu. Estimating the Strength of Authorship Evidence With a Deep-Learning-Based Approach. In Pradeesh Parameswaran, Jennifer Biggs, and David Powers, editors,Proceedings of the The 20th Annual Workshop of the Austr...

  59. [67]

    Authorship Verifica- tion Applied to Detection of Compromised Accounts on Online Social Networks – A Continuous Approach

    Sylvio Barbon Junior, Rodrigo Augusto Igawa, and Bruno Bogaz Zarpelão. Authorship Verifica- tion Applied to Detection of Compromised Accounts on Online Social Networks – A Continuous Approach. Multim. Tools Appl., 76(3):3213–3233, 2017

    2017

  60. [68]

    Overview of the Author Identification Task at PAN 2013

    Patrick Juola and Efstathios Stamatatos. Overview of the Author Identification Task at PAN 2013. In Forner et al. [45]

    2013

  61. [69]

    Function Words in Authorship Attribution

    Mike Kestemont. Function Words in Authorship Attribution. From Black Magic to Theory? In Anna Feldman, Anna Kazantseva, and Stan Szpakowicz, editors,Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Literature (CLFL),pages59–66, Gothenburg, Sweden, April2014. As...

  62. [70]

    Overview of the Cross-Domain Authorship Verifi- cation Task at PAN 2020

    Mike Kestemont, Enrique Manjavacas, Ilia Markov, Janek Bevendorff, Matti Wiegmann, Efstathios Stamatatos, Martin Potthast, and Benno Stein. Overview of the Cross-Domain Authorship Verifi- cation Task at PAN 2020. In Linda Cappellato, Carsten Eickhoff, Nicola Ferro, and Aurélie...

    2020

  63. [71]

    Overview of the Cross-Domain Authorship Veri- fication Task at PAN 2021

    Mike Kestemont, Enrique Manjavacas, Ilia Markov, Janek Bevendorff, Matti Wiegmann, Efstathios Stamatatos, Benno Stein, and Martin Potthast. Overview of the Cross-Domain Authorship Veri- fication Task at PAN 2021. In Guglielmo Faggioli, Nicola Ferro, Alexis Joly, Maria Maistro,...

    2021

  64. [72]

    Authenticating the Writings of Julius Caesar.Expert Syst

    Mike Kestemont, Justin Anthony Stover, Moshe Koppel, Folgert Karsdorp, and Walter Daelemans. Authenticating the Writings of Julius Caesar.Expert Syst. Appl., 63:86–96, 2016

    2016

  65. [73]

    A Slightly-Modified GI-Based Author-Verifier with Lots of Features (ASGALF)

    Mahmoud Khonji and Youssef Iraqi. A Slightly-Modified GI-Based Author-Verifier with Lots of Features (ASGALF). In Linda Cappellato, Nicola Ferro, Martin Halvey, and Wessel Kraaij, editors, Working Notes for CLEF 2014 Conference, Sheffield, UK, September 15-18, 2014., volume 11...

    2014

  66. [74]

    Improved Score Aggregation for Authorship Verification

    Mahmoud Khonji, Youssef Iraqi, and Loubna Mekouar. Improved Score Aggregation for Authorship Verification. Knowledge and Information Systems, 12 2022

    2022

  67. [75]

    The Enron Corpus: A New Dataset for Email Classification Research

    Bryan Klimt and Yiming Yang. The Enron Corpus: A New Dataset for Email Classification Research. In Jean-François Boulicaut, Floriana Esposito, Fosca Giannotti, and Dino Pedreschi, editors, Machine Learning: ECML 2004, pages 217–226, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004. Springer Berlin He...

    2004

  68. [76]

    Kneser and H

    R. Kneser and H. Ney. Improved Backing-off for M-gram Language Modeling. In1995 International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, volume 1, pages 181–184 vol.1, 1995

    1995

  69. [77]

    UniNE at CLEF 2015 Author Identification: Notebook for PAN at CLEF 2015

    Mirco Kocher and Jacques Savoy. UniNE at CLEF 2015 Author Identification: Notebook for PAN at CLEF 2015. In CLEF (Working Notes), volume 1391 ofCEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2015

    2015

  70. [78]

    A Simple and Efficient Algorithm for Authorship Verification

    Mirco Kocher and Jacques Savoy. A Simple and Efficient Algorithm for Authorship Verification. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(1):259–269, 2017

    2017

  71. [79]

    Authorship Verification as a One-Class Classification Prob- lem

    Moshe Koppel and Jonathan Schler. Authorship Verification as a One-Class Classification Prob- lem. In Carla E. Brodley, editor,Machine Learning, Proceedings of the Twenty-first International Conference (ICML 2004), Banff, Alberta, Canada, July 4-8, 2004, volume 69 ofACM Intern...

    2004

  72. [80]

    Authorship Attribution in the Wild.Lan- guage Resources and Evaluation, 45(1):83–94, 2011

    Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Schler, and Shlomo Argamon. Authorship Attribution in the Wild.Lan- guage Resources and Evaluation, 45(1):83–94, 2011

    2011

  73. [81]

    Fundamental Problem

    Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Schler, Shlomo Argamon, and Yaron Winter. The “Fundamental Problem” of Authorship Attribution.English Studies, 93(3):284–291, 2012

    2012

  74. [82]

    Measuring Differentiability: Un- masking Pseudonymous Authors.J

    Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Schler, and Elisheva Bonchek-Dokow. Measuring Differentiability: Un- masking Pseudonymous Authors.J. Mach. Learn. Res., 8:1261–1276, December 2007

    2007

  75. [83]

    AutomaticallyIdentifyingPseudepigraphicTexts

    MosheKoppelandShacharSeidman. AutomaticallyIdentifyingPseudepigraphicTexts. In EMNLP, pages 1449–1454. ACL, 2013

    2013

  76. [84]

    Determining If Two Documents are Written by the Same Author

    Moshe Koppel and Yaron Winter. Determining If Two Documents are Written by the Same Author. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(1):178–187, 2014

    2014

  77. [85]

    Langacker.Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, volume 1

    Ronald W. Langacker.Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, volume 1. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1987

    1987

  78. [86]

    Deep Dive into Authorship Verification of Email Messages with Convolutional Neural Network

    Marina Litvak. Deep Dive into Authorship Verification of Email Messages with Convolutional Neural Network. In Juan Antonio Lossio-Ventura, Denisse Muñante, and Hugo Alatrista-Salas, editors, Information Management and Big Data, pages 129–136, Cham, 2019. Springer International...

    2019

  79. [87]

    The Ap- plicability of Authorship Verification to Swedish Discussion Forums

    Lukas Lundmark, Fredrik Johansson, Björn Pelzer, Lisa Kaati, and Johan Fernquist. The Ap- plicability of Authorship Verification to Swedish Discussion Forums. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), pages 1805–1812, 2020

    2020

  80. [88]

    Science",

    Michael Lynch and Ruth McNally. "Science", "Common Sense”, and DNA Evidence: A Legal ControversyAboutthePublicUnderstandingofScience. Public Understanding of Science, 12(1):83– 103, 01 2003

    2003

  81. [89]

    Image-Based Rec- ommendations on Styles and Substitutes

    Julian McAuley, Christopher Targett, Qinfeng Shi, and Anton van den Hengel. Image-Based Rec- ommendations on Styles and Substitutes. In Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR ’15, pages 43–52, New ...

    2015

  82. [90]

    A Guideline for the Validation of Likelihood Ratio Methods Used for Forensic Evidence Evaluation.Forensic Science International, 276:142–153, July 2017

    Didier Meuwly, Daniel Ramos, and Rudolf Haraksim. A Guideline for the Validation of Likelihood Ratio Methods Used for Forensic Evidence Evaluation.Forensic Science International, 276:142–153, July 2017

    2017

  83. [91]

    CLG Authorship Analytics: A Library for Authorship Verification

    Erwan Moreau and Carl Vogel. CLG Authorship Analytics: A Library for Authorship Verification. International Journal of Digital Humanities, 10 2022

    2022

  84. [92]

    ForensicVoiceComparisonandtheParadigmShift

    GeoffreyStewartMorrison. ForensicVoiceComparisonandtheParadigmShift. Science and Justice, 49(4):298–308, 12 2009. PMID: 20120610

    2009

  85. [93]

    Measuring the Validity and Reliability of Forensic Likelihood-Ratio Systems

    Geoffrey Stewart Morrison. Measuring the Validity and Reliability of Forensic Likelihood-Ratio Systems. Science & Justice, 51(3):91–98, September 2011. 39

    2011

  86. [94]

    Inference in an Authorship Problem.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58:275–309, 1963

    Frederick Mosteller and David L Wallace. Inference in an Authorship Problem.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58:275–309, 1963

    1963

  87. [95]

    Neal, Kalaivani Sundararajan, and Damon L

    Tempestt J. Neal, Kalaivani Sundararajan, and Damon L. Woodard. Exploiting Linguistic Style as a Cognitive Biometric for Continuous Verification. In2018 International Conference on Biometrics, ICB 2018, Gold Coast, Australia, February 20-23, 2018, pages 270–276. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  88. [96]

    Neumann, I

    C. Neumann, I. W. Evett, and J. Skerrett. Quantifying the Weight of Evidence from a Forensic Fingerprint Comparison: A New Paradigm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 175(2):371–415, 04 2012

    2012

  89. [97]

    A Theory of Linguistic Individuality for Authorship Analysis

    Andrea Nini. A Theory of Linguistic Individuality for Authorship Analysis. Elements in Forensic Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2023

    2023

  90. [98]

    Novino Nirmal.A, Kyung-Ah Sohn, and T. Chung. A Graph Model Based Author Attribution Technique for Single-Class e-Mail Classification. In2015 IEEE/ACIS 14th International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS), pages 191–196, June 2015

    2015

  91. [99]

    Standards for the Formulation of Evaluative Forensic Science Expert Opinion.Science & Justice, 49(3):161–164, 09 2009

    Association of Forensic Science Providers. Standards for the Formulation of Evaluative Forensic Science Expert Opinion.Science & Justice, 49(3):161–164, 09 2009

    2009

  92. [100]

    Oliveira, Edson J

    Daniel Pavelec, Luiz S. Oliveira, Edson J. R. Justino, and Leonardo Vidal Batista. Using Conjunc- tions and Adverbs for Author Verification.J. UCS, 14(18):2967–2981, 2008

    2008

  93. [101]

    An Improved Impostors Method for Authorship Ver- ification

    Nektaria Potha and Efstathios Stamatatos. An Improved Impostors Method for Authorship Ver- ification. In Gareth J. F. Jones, Séamus Lawless, Julio Gonzalo, Liadh Kelly, Lorraine Goeuriot, Thomas Mandl, Linda Cappellato, and Nicola Ferro, editors, Experimental IR Meets Multilin...

    2017

  94. [102]

    Improved Algorithms for Extrinsic Author Verification

    Nektaria Potha and Efstathios Stamatatos. Improved Algorithms for Extrinsic Author Verification. Knowledge and Information Systems, Oct 2019

    2019

  95. [103]

    A Decade of Shared Tasks in Digital Text Forensics at PAN

    Martin Potthast, Paolo Rosso, Efstathios Stamatatos, and Benno Stein. A Decade of Shared Tasks in Digital Text Forensics at PAN. In Leif Azzopardi, Benno Stein, Norbert Fuhr, Philipp Mayr, Claudia Hauff, and Djoerd Hiemstra, editors,Advances in Information Retrieval, pages 291...

    2019

  96. [104]

    Information-Theoretical Assessment of the Performance of Likelihood Ratio Com- putation Methods

    Daniel Ramos, Joaquin Gonzalez-Rodriguez, Grzegorz Zadora, and Colin Aitken. Information-Theoretical Assessment of the Performance of Likelihood Ratio Com- putation Methods. Journal of Forensic Sciences , 58(6):1503–1518, 2013. _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/...

    2013 doi

  97. [105]

    ForensicScienceRegulatorCodesofPracticeandConductDevelopment of Evaluative Opinions

    ForensicScienceRegulator. ForensicScienceRegulatorCodesofPracticeandConductDevelopment of Evaluative Opinions. Technical report, Forensic Science Regulator, 2021

    2021

  98. [106]

    Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT- Networks

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT- Networks. In Kentaro Inui, Jing Jiang, Vincent Ng, and Xiaojun Wan, editors,Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th Inter- nationa...

    2019

  99. [107]

    A Robust Approach to Authorship Verification Using Siamese Deep Learning: Application in Phishing Email Detection.Int

    Mohamed Abdelkarim Remmide, Fatima Boumahdi, Imane Rebeh Ammar Aouchiche, Amina Guendouz, and Narhimene Boustia. A Robust Approach to Authorship Verification Using Siamese Deep Learning: Application in Phishing Email Detection.Int. J. Speech Technol., 27(2):405–412, 2024

    2024

  100. [108]

    Vignaux, and Charles E.H

    Bernard Robertson, G.A. Vignaux, and Charles E.H. Berger.Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom. Wiley, Chichester, 08 2016. DOI: 10.1002/9781118492475

    2016 doi

  101. [109]

    Rangel Pardo, and Walter Daelemans

    Paolo Rosso, Martin Potthast, Benno Stein, Efstathios Stamatatos, Francisco M. Rangel Pardo, and Walter Daelemans. Evolution of the PAN Lab on Digital Text Forensics. In Nicola Ferro and Carol Peters, editors, Information Retrieval Evaluation in a Changing World - Lessons Lear...

    2019

  102. [110]

    Pennebaker

    Jonathan Schler, Moshe Koppel, Shlomo Argamon, and James W. Pennebaker. Effects of Age and Gender on Blogging. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Computational Approaches to Analyzing Weblogs, pages 199–205. AAAI, 2006

    2006

  103. [111]

    A Blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model.Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3(1):3–25, 2015

    Hans-Jörg Schmid. A Blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model.Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3(1):3–25, 2015. Citation Key: Schmid2015

    2015

  104. [112]

    TheFuzz : Fuzzy String Matching in Python.https://github.com/seatgeek/thefuzz, 2021

    SeatGeek. TheFuzz : Fuzzy String Matching in Python.https://github.com/seatgeek/thefuzz, 2021

    2021

  105. [113]

    Authorship Verification Using the Impostors Method Notebook for PAN at CLEF 2013

    Shachar Seidman. Authorship Verification Using the Impostors Method Notebook for PAN at CLEF 2013. In Forner et al. [45]

    2013

  106. [114]

    Authorship Attribution with Topic Models

    Yanir Seroussi, Ingrid Zukerman, and Fabian Bohnert. Authorship Attribution with Topic Models. Comput. Linguistics, 40(2):269–310, 2014

    2014

  107. [115]

    Sinclair

    John. Sinclair. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991

    1991

  108. [116]

    Sockpuppet Detection in Wikipedia: A Corpus of Real-World Deceptive Writing for Linking Identities

    Thamar Solorio, Ragib Hasan, and Mainul Mizan. Sockpuppet Detection in Wikipedia: A Corpus of Real-World Deceptive Writing for Linking Identities. InProceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), pages 1355–1358, Reykjavik, Ic...

    2014

  109. [117]

    Stack Exchange

    Inc. Stack Exchange. Stack Exchange — All Sites.https://stackexchange.com/sites, 2019

    2019

  110. [118]

    Authorship Verification: A Review of Recent Advances.Research in Com- puting Science, 123(1):9–25, December 2016

    Efstathios Stamatatos. Authorship Verification: A Review of Recent Advances.Research in Com- puting Science, 123(1):9–25, December 2016

    2016

  111. [119]

    Authorship Attribution Using Text Distortion

    Efstathios Stamatatos. Authorship Attribution Using Text Distortion. InProceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for the Computational Linguistics, EACL 2017, April 3-7, 2017, Valencia, Spain. The Association for Computer Linguistics, 2017

    2017

  112. [120]

    Overview of the Author Identification Task at PAN 2015

    Efstathios Stamatatos, Walter Daelemans, Ben Verhoeven, Patrick Juola, Aurelio López-López, Martin Potthast, and Benno Stein. Overview of the Author Identification Task at PAN 2015. In Cappellato et al. [28]

    2015

  113. [121]

    Overview of the Authorship Verification Task at PAN 2022

    Efstathios Stamatatos, Mike Kestemont, Krzysztof Kredens, Piotr Pezik, Annina Heini, Janek Bevendorff, Benno Stein, and Martin Potthast. Overview of the Authorship Verification Task at PAN 2022. In Guglielmo Faggioli, Nicola Ferro, Allan Hanbury, and Martin Potthast, editors, ...

    2022

  114. [122]

    De- tecting Ghostwriters in High Schools

    Magnus Stavngaard, August Sørensen, Stephan Lorenzen, Niklas Hjuler, and Stephen Alstrup. De- tecting Ghostwriters in High Schools. In27th European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, ESANN 2019, Bruges, Belgium, April 24-26, 2019, 2019

    2019

  115. [123]

    Meta Analysis within Authorship Verifica- tion

    Benno Stein, Nedim Lipka, and Sven Meyer zu Eissen. Meta Analysis within Authorship Verifica- tion. In19th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2008), 1-5 September 2008, Turin, Italy, pages 34–39. IEEE Computer Society, 2008

    2008

  116. [124]

    Authorship Verification

    Ariel Stolerman. Authorship Verification. PhD thesis, 2015. UMI Dissertations Publishing 2015

    2015

  117. [125]

    Webis TripAdvisor Corpus 2014 (Webis-Tripad-14).Zen- odo, 2015

    Martin Trenkmann and Katharina Spiel. Webis TripAdvisor Corpus 2014 (Webis-Tripad-14).Zen- odo, 2015

    2014

  118. [126]

    An Application of a Profile-Based Method for Authorship Verification: Investi- gating the Authenticity of Pliny the Younger’s Letter to Trajan Concerning the Christians.Digit

    Enrico Tuccinardi. An Application of a Profile-Based Method for Authorship Verification: Investi- gating the Authenticity of Pliny the Younger’s Letter to Trajan Concerning the Christians.Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit., 32(2):435–447, 2017. 41

    2017

  119. [127]

    Language in Brains, Minds, and Ma- chines

    Greta Tuckute, Nancy Kanwisher, and Evelina Fedorenko. Language in Brains, Minds, and Ma- chines. Annual Review of Neuroscience, April 2024

    2024

  120. [128]

    Contributions of Memory Circuits to Language: The Declarative/Procedural Model

    Michael T Ullman. Contributions of Memory Circuits to Language: The Declarative/Procedural Model. Cognition, 92(1-2):231–270, 05 2004

    2004

  121. [129]

    Michael T. Ullman. Chapter 76 - The Declarative/Procedural Model: A Neurobiological Model of Language Learning, Knowledge, and Use, pages 953–968. Academic Press, San Diego, 2016

    2016

  122. [130]

    van Leeuwen

    David A. van Leeuwen. ROC: Compute Structures To Compute ROC and DET Plots and Metrics for 2-Class Classifiers, 2015. Publisher: R package

    2015

  123. [131]

    van Leeuwen and Niko Brümmer

    David A. van Leeuwen and Niko Brümmer. An Introduction to Application-Independent Evaluation ofSpeakerRecognitionSystems. InChristianMüller, editor, Speaker Classification I: Fundamentals, Features, and Methods, pages 330–353. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007

    2007

  124. [132]

    Feature Vector Difference based Neural Network and Logistic Regression Models for Authorship Verification

    Janith Weerasinghe and Rachel Greenstadt. Feature Vector Difference based Neural Network and Logistic Regression Models for Authorship Verification. In Linda Cappellato, Carsten Eickhoff, Nicola Ferro, and Aurélie Névéol, editors,Working Notes of CLEF 2020 - Conference and Lab...

    2020

  125. [133]

    Feature Vector Difference based Author- ship Verification for Open-World Settings

    Janith Weerasinghe, Rhia Singh, and Rachel Greenstadt. Feature Vector Difference based Author- ship Verification for Open-World Settings. In Guglielmo Faggioli, Nicola Ferro, Alexis Joly, Maria Maistro, and Florina Piroi, editors,Proceedings of the Working Notes of CLEF 2021 -...

    2021

  126. [134]

    Using Authorship Verification to Mitigate Abuse in Online Communities

    Janith Weerasinghe, Rhia Singh, and Rachel Greenstadt. Using Authorship Verification to Mitigate Abuse in Online Communities. In Ceren Budak, Meeyoung Cha, and Daniele Quercia, editors, Proceedings of the Sixteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM 2...

    2022

  127. [135]

    Same Author or Just Same Topic? Towards Content-Independent Style Representations

    Anna Wegmann, Marijn Schraagen, and Dong Nguyen. Same Author or Just Same Topic? Towards Content-Independent Style Representations. In Spandana Gella, He He, Bodhisattwa Prasad Ma- jumder, Burcu Can, Eleonora Giunchiglia, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Sewon Min, Maximilian Mozes, Xiang ...

    2022

  128. [136]

    Using Word n-grams to Identify Authors and Idiolects: A Corpus Approach to a Forensic Linguistic Problem.International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2):212–241, 2017

    David Wright. Using Word n-grams to Identify Authors and Idiolects: A Corpus Approach to a Forensic Linguistic Problem.International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2):212–241, 2017

    2017

  129. [137]

    Inc. Yelp. Yelp Open Dataset: An All-Purpose Dataset for Learning. https://www.yelp.com/ dataset, 2018

    2018

  130. [138]

    G. Zadora. Evaluation of Evidence Value of Glass Fragments by Likelihood Ratio and Bayesian Network Approaches.Analytica Chimica Acta, 642(1-2):279–290, 05 2009. 42

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed May 24, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.