Arabic authorship attribution: An extensive study on twitter posts

© 2018 ACM 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

Drawing Elena Ferrante's Profile. Workshop Proceedings, Padova, 7 September 2017

Elena Ferrante is an internationally acclaimed Italian novelist whose real identity has been kept secret by E/O publishing house for more than 25 years. Owing to her popularity, major Italian and foreign newspapers have long tried to discover her real identity. However, only a few attempts have been made to foster a scientific debate on her work. In 2016, Arjuna Tuzzi and Michele Cortelazzo led an Italian research team that conducted a preliminary study and collected a well-founded, large corpus of Italian novels comprising 150 works published in the last 30 years by 40 different authors. Moreover, they shared their data with a select group of international experts on authorship attribution, profiling, and analysis of textual data: Maciej Eder and Jan Rybicki (Poland), Patrick Juola (United States), Vittorio Loreto and his research team, Margherita Lalli and Francesca Tria (Italy), George Mikros (Greece), Pierre Ratinaud (France), and Jacques Savoy (Switzerland). The chapters of this volume report the results of this endeavour that were first presented during the international workshop Drawing Elena Ferrante's Profile in Padua on 7 September 2017 as part of the 3rd IQLA-GIAT Summer School in Quantitative Analysis of Textual Data. The fascinating research findings suggest that Elena Ferrante\u2019s work definitely deserves \u201cmany hands\u201d as well as an extensive effort to understand her distinct writing style and the reasons for her worldwide success

Measuring co-authorship and networking-adjusted scientific impact

Appraisal of the scientific impact of researchers, teams and institutions with productivity and citation metrics has major repercussions. Funding and promotion of individuals and survival of teams and institutions depend on publications and citations. In this competitive environment, the number of authors per paper is increasing and apparently some co-authors don't satisfy authorship criteria. Listing of individual contributions is still sporadic and also open to manipulation. Metrics are needed to measure the networking intensity for a single scientist or group of scientists accounting for patterns of co-authorship. Here, I define I1 for a single scientist as the number of authors who appear in at least I1 papers of the specific scientist. For a group of scientists or institution, In is defined as the number of authors who appear in at least In papers that bear the affiliation of the group or institution. I1 depends on the number of papers authored Np. The power exponent R of the relationship between I1 and Np categorizes scientists as solitary (R>2.5), nuclear (R=2.25-2.5), networked (R=2-2.25), extensively networked (R=1.75-2) or collaborators (R<1.75). R may be used to adjust for co-authorship networking the citation impact of a scientist. In similarly provides a simple measure of the effective networking size to adjust the citation impact of groups or institutions. Empirical data are provided for single scientists and institutions for the proposed metrics. Cautious adoption of adjustments for co-authorship and networking in scientific appraisals may offer incentives for more accountable co-authorship behaviour in published articles.Comment: 25 pages, 5 figure

Authorship Verification, Neighborhood-based Classification

El análisis de autoría se ha convertido en una herramienta determinante para el análisis de documentos digitales en las ciencias forenses. Proponemos un método de Verificación de Autoría mediante el análisis de las semejanzas entre documentos de un autor por vecindad, sin estimar umbrales a partir de un entrenamiento, implementamos dos estrategias de representación de los documentos de un autor, una basada en instancias y otra en el cálculo del centroide. Evaluamos colecciones según el número de muestras, los géneros textuales y el tema abordado. Realizamos un análisis del aporte de cada función de comparación y de cada rasgo empleado así como una combinación por mayoría de los votos de cada par función-rasgo empleado en la semejanza entre documentos. Las pruebas se realizaron usando las colecciones públicas de las competencias PAN 2014 y 2015. Los resultados obtenidos son prometedores y nos permiten evaluar nuestra propuesta y la identificación del trabajo futuro a desarrollar.The Authorship Analysis task has become a determining tool for the analysis of digital documents in forensic sciences. We propose a neighborhood classification method of Authorship Verification analyzing the similarities of a document of unknown authorship between samples documents of one author, without estimating parameters values from a training data, we implemented two strategies of representation of the documents of an author, an instance based and a profile based one. We will evaluate the methods in different data collections according to the number of samples, the textual genres and the topic addressed. We perform an analysis of the contribution of each function of comparison and each feature used to take as final decision a combination by majority of the votes of each function-feature pair used in the similarity between documents. The tests were carried out using the public data sets of the Authorship Verification PAN 2014 and 2015 competitions. The results obtained are promising and allow us to evaluate our proposal and the identification of future work to be developed

Two-layer classification and distinguished representations of users and documents for grouping and authorship identification

Most studies on authorship identification reported a drop in the identification result when the number of authors exceeds 20-25. In this paper, we introduce a new user representation to address this problem and split classification across two layers. There are at least 3 novelties in this paper. First, the two-layer approach allows applying authorship identification over larger number of authors (tested over 100 authors), and it is extendable. The authors are divided into groups that contain smaller number of authors. Given an anonymous document, the primary layer detects the group to which the document belongs. Then, the secondary layer determines the particular author inside the selected group. In order to extract the groups linking similar authors, clustering is applied over users rather than documents. Hence, the second novelty of this paper is introducing a new user representation that is different from document representation. Without the proposed user representation, the clustering over documents will result in documents of author(s) distributed over several clusters, instead of a single cluster membership for each author. Third, the extracted clusters are descriptive and meaningful of their users as the dimensions have psychological backgrounds. For authorship identification, the documents are labelled with the extracted groups and fed into machine learning to build classification models that predicts the group and author of a given document. The results show that the documents are highly correlated with the extracted corresponding groups, and the proposed model can be accurately trained to determine the group and the author identity

Academic authorship: who, why and in what order?

We are frequently asked by our colleagues and students for advice on authorship for scientific articles. This short paper outlines some of the issues that we have experienced and the advice we usually provide. This editorial follows on from our work on submitting a paper1 and also on writing an academic paper for publication.2 We should like to start by noting that, in our view, there exist two separate, but related issues: (a) authorship and (b) order of authors. The issue of authorship centres on the notion of who can be an author, who should be an author and who definitely should not be an author, and this is partly discipline specific. The second issue, the order of authors, is usually dictated by the academic tradition from which the work comes. One can immediately envisage disagreements within a multi-disciplinary team of researchers where members of the team may have different approaches to authorship order