Authorship Attribution Methods, Challenges, and Future Research Directions: A Comprehensive Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few decades, researchers have put their effort and paid significant attention to the authorship attribution field, as it plays an important role in software forensics analysis, plagiarism detection, security attack detection, and protection of trade secrets, patent claims, copyright infringement, or cases of software theft. It helps new researchers understand the state-of-the-art works on authorship attribution methods, identify and examine the emerging methods for authorship attribution, and discuss their key concepts, associated challenges, and potential future work that could help newcomers in this field. This paper comprehensively surveys authorship attribution methods and their key classifications, used feature types, available datasets, model evaluation criteria and metrics, and challenges and limitations. In addition, we discuss the potential future research directions of the authorship attribution field based on the insights and lessons learned from this survey work.
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 | 0.047 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".