A novel approach of mining write-prints for authorship attribution in e-mail forensics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an alarming increase in the number of cybercrime incidents through anonymous e-mails. The problem of e-mail authorship attribution is to identify the most plausible author of an anonymous e-mail from a group of potential suspects. Most previous contributions employed a traditional classification approach, such as decision tree and Support Vector Machine (SVM), to identify the author and studied the effects of different writing style features on the classification accuracy. However, little attention has been given on ensuring the quality of the evidence. In this paper, we introduce an innovative data mining method to capture the write-print of every suspect and model it as combinations of features that occurred frequently in the suspect's e-mails. This notion is called frequent pattern , which has proven to be effective in many data mining applications, but it is the first time to be applied to the problem of authorship attribution. Unlike the traditional approach, the extracted write-print by our method is unique among the suspects and, therefore, provides convincing and credible evidence for presenting it in a court of law. Experiments on real-life e-mails suggest that the proposed method can effectively identify the author and the results are supported by a strong evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".