MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901907079 · doi:10.1145/3236391

Arabic Authorship Attribution

2018· article· en· W2901907079 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAuthorship Attribution and Profiling
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCybercrimeComputer scienceAnonymityAuthorship attributionThe InternetIdentity (music)CyberspaceOnline identityStylometryArtificial intelligenceComputer securityWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Law enforcement faces problems in tracing the true identity of offenders in cybercrime investigations. Most offenders mask their true identity, impersonate people of high authority, or use identity deception and obfuscation tactics to avoid detection and traceability. To address the problem of anonymity, authorship analysis is used to identify individuals by their writing styles without knowing their actual identities. Most authorship studies are dedicated to English due to its widespread use over the Internet, but recent cyber-attacks such as the distribution of Stuxnet indicate that Internet crimes are not limited to a certain community, language, culture, ideology, or ethnicity. To effectively investigate cybercrime and to address the problem of anonymity in online communication, there is a pressing need to study authorship analysis of languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Turkish, and so on. Arabic, the focus of this study, is the fourth most widely used language on the Internet. This study investigates authorship of Arabic discourse/text, especially tiny text, Twitter posts. We benchmark the performance of a profile-based approach that uses n -grams as features and compare it with state-of-the-art instance-based classification techniques. Then we adapt an event-visualization tool that is developed for English to accommodate both Arabic and English languages and visualize the result of the attribution evidence. In addition, we investigate the relative effect of the training set, the length of tweets, and the number of authors on authorship classification accuracy. Finally, we show that diacritics have an insignificant effect on the attribution process and part-of-speech tags are less effective than character-level and word-level n -grams.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it