Can Authorship Attribution Models Distinguish Speakers in Speech Transcripts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Authorship verification is the task of determining if two distinct writing samples share the same author and is typically concerned with the attribution of written text. In this paper, we explore the attribution of transcribed speech, which poses novel challenges. The main challenge is that many stylistic features, such as punctuation and capitalization, are not informative in this setting. On the other hand, transcribed speech exhibits other patterns, such as filler words and backchannels (e.g., um, uh-huh), which may be characteristic of different speakers. We propose a new benchmark for speaker attribution focused on human-transcribed conversational speech transcripts. To limit spurious associations of speakers with topic, we employ both conversation prompts and speakers participating in the same conversation to construct verification trials of varying difficulties. We establish the state of the art on this new benchmark by comparing a suite of neural and non-neural baselines, finding that although written text attribution models achieve surprisingly good performance in certain settings, they perform markedly worse as conversational topic is increasingly controlled. We present analyses of the impact of transcription style on performance as well as the ability of fine-tuning on speech transcripts to improve performance.1
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".