Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40608837›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Attributing authorship via the perplexity of authorial language models.

Weihang Huang, Akira Murakami, Jack Grieve

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Weihang HuangDepartment of Linguistics and Communication, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, West Midlands, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0820-4476
Akira MurakamiDepartment of Linguistics and Communication, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, West Midlands, United Kingdom.
Jack GrieveDepartment of Linguistics and Communication, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, West Midlands, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3630-7349

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Authorship attribution is the task of identifying the most likely author of a questioned document from a set of candidate authors, where each candidate is represented by a writing sample. A wide range of quantitative methods for inferring authorship have been developed in stylometry, but the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) offers new opportunities in this field. In this paper, we introduce a technique for authorship attribution based on fine-tuned LLMs. Our approach involves first further pretraining LLMs for each candidate author based on their known writings and then assigning the questioned document to the author whose Authorial Language Model (ALM) finds the questioned document most predictable, measured as the perplexity of the questioned document. We find that our approach meets or exceeds the current state-of-the-art on several standard benchmarking datasets. In addition, we show how our approach can be used to measure the predictability of each word in a questioned document for a given candidate ALM, allowing the linguistic patterns that drive our attributions to be inspected directly. Finally, we analyze what types of words generally drive successful attributions, finding that content words classes are characterized by a higher density of authorship information than function word classes, challenging a long-standing assumption of stylometry.

Indexed as

AuthorshipLanguageModels, TheoreticalHumansLinguistics

Identifiers

PMID40608837
PMCPMC12225838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.