A Controlled-Corpus Experiment in Authorship Identification by Cross-Entropy

A Controlled-Corpus Experiment in Authorship
Identification by Cross-Entropy

Patrick
Juola

Duquesne University
juola@mathcs.duq.edu

Harald
Baayen

Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
baayen@mpi.nl

2003

University of Georgia

Athens, Georgia

ACH/ALLC 2003

editor

Eric
Rochester

William
A.
Kretzschmar, Jr.

encoder

Sara
A.
Schmidt

This paper describes an authorship, and more generally document classification,
experiment on a difficult Dutch corpus of university writings. By measuring
linguistic distances using a cross-entropy technique, a technique sensitive not
only to the distributions of language features, but also to their relative
intersequencing, classification judgments can be made with great sensitivity,
significance, confidence, and accuracy. In particular, despite the designed
difficulty of the Dutch corpus used, the technique was still able to reliably
detect not only authorship, but also subtle features of register, topic, and
even the educational attainments of the author.
Authorship attribution has received significant attention in recent years as a
testbed and touchstone for new theories of authorial markers and linguistic
statistics; (Holmes, 1998) presents a brief historical outline of some major
theories. One of the current front-runners, proposed in (Burrows, 1989),
suggests that a strong cue to authorship can be gleaned from a principle
components’ analysis (PCA) of the most common function words in a document. Like
most statistical techniques, a scholar’s ability to apply this technique is
limited by the usual features of sample size, sample representativeness, and
test power. Another popular technique, linear discriminant analysis (LDA), may
be able to distinguish among previously chosen classes, but as a supervised
algorithm, it has so many degrees of freedom that the discriminants it infers
may not be “clinically” significant. An alternative technique using measurements
of cross-entropy (Wyner, 1996; Juola, 1997, 2003) might be a better tool under
difficult circumstances because it is capable of extracting more information
(and thus distinguish more readily) along perceptually salient lines from a
given data set.
The corpus studied by Baayen, Van Halteren, Neijt, and Tweedie (Baayen, et al.
2002) has been specifically developed to be a difficult problem in authorship
attribution. This corpus consists of small writing samples taken from
undergraduate students at the University of Nijmegen on carefully and closely
controlled topics. Eight students, four first-year and four fourth-year, were
asked to write nine essays (for a total of 72) on the same set of
closely-specified topics. These topics included three samples of fiction (for
example, a retelling of the fairy tale of “Roodkapje,” the Dutch equivalent of
“Little Red Riding Hood”), three of argumentative writing, and three of
descriptive writing. Document sizes varied from approximately 3600 to 7600
words. These documents were analyzed using cross-entropy and the results
compared to analysis via PCA and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) (Baayen et
al., 2001) to see both what the appropriate dimensions of variation were, and
whether or not authorship attribution was practical in this tightly controlled a
setting.
Analysis using function word PCA showed a marked lack of significant and useful
results. Baayen et all found “no authorial structure,” although education level
and to a lesser extent genre were separated. LDA also could not reliably
identify author, and in most experiments performed at chance level. First, as
expected, the overall cross-entropy distances showed an extremely strong ability
to sort documents by topic (grouping all “Roodkapje” stories together, for
instance). Statistical analysis, however, shows a strong (and significant)
tendency to within-group homogeneity across all dimensions of interest : topic,
genre, author, and even year in school. In particular, the average within-group
distance, excluding identity measurements, is significantly less than the
average without-group measurement. This holds true, irrespective of whether
groups are defined by authorship (p < 0.000001), register (p <
10-15), or even education level (p < 0.0084). This suggests that
cross-entropy can be usefully deployed to author identification in this corpus.
A further test revealed that, for every document in the corpus and for every pair
of authors, a potential authorship dispute can be resolved approximately 73% of
the time using cross-entropy. Furthermore, applying a fractionation technique to
restrict attention to only the function words (Juola, 1998; Juola and Baayen, in
preparation) could improve these results to 86% correct identification. This can
be compared to a best published result of 82% obtained by Baayen et al. using an
enhanced LDA model.
Although the enhanced version of LDA performed substantially better, it should be
noted, however, that LDA is a supervised technique, and itself makes strong
assumptions about the nature of the authorial problem that make it unsuitable to
exploratory, unsupervised study.
Even when one restricts the samples to a mere 500 words each, analysis still
yields 63% of the pairwise comparisons correctly made, better than any result
using PCA or standard (unenhanced) LDA. These results improve upon principle
components analysis and standard linear discriminant analysis, with remarkable
economy of calculation.
The improved performance can be attributed to information used by cross-entropy
but not by word-frequency histograms, specifically in ordering and sequencing of
(function) words. Function word PCA performs well by using the relative presence
or absence of function words as a cue and/or proxy for idiosyncratic syntactic
patterns. Cross-entropy can distinguish not only a difference in
presence/absence, but also a difference in relative sequencing. This additional
source of information can allow more reliable inferences to be drawn from
corpora and more subtle distinctions to be made. In theory, the idea that
sequencing is more distinguishing than “mere” presence or absence could be
applied to almost any form of linguistic data and any task. Irrespective of what
feature sets are eventually found to be informative for authorship attribution,
it is to be expected that sequences of features will probably outperform
unordered bags of features in making fine distinctions.

REFERENCES

H.
Baayen

H.
van Halteren

A.
Niejt

F.
Tweedie

An experiment in authorship attribution

JADT 2002

2002

J.
F.
Burrows

An Ocean where each Kind...: Statistical Analysis and
Some Major Determinants of Literary style

Computers and the Humanities

23
4-5
309-21
1989

D.
I.
Holmes

The Evolution of Stylometry in Humanities
Computing.

Literary and Linguistic Computing

13
3
111-7
1998

P.
Juola

What can we do with small corpora? Document
categorization via cross-entropy

SimCat 1997

1997

P.
Juola

Measuring Linguistic Complexity : The Morphological
Tier

Journal of Quantitative Linguistics

5
3
206-14
1998

P.
Juola

The Time Course of Language Change

Computers and the Humanities

37
1

2003

P.
Juola

H.
Baayen

Fractionation as a technique for improving document
analysis

(in preparation)

A.
Wyner

Entropy estimation and patterns

Workshop on Information Theory

1996