Domain, genre and topic influences on author style adversely affect the performance of authorship attribution (AA) in multi-genre and multi-domain data sets. Although recent approaches to AA tasks focus on suggesting new feature sets and sampling techniques to improve the robustness of a classification system, they do not incorporate domain-specific properties to reduce the negative impact of irrelevant features on AA. This study presents a novel scaling approach, namely, bucketed common vector scaling, to efficiently reduce negative domain influence without reducing the dimensionality of existing features; therefore, this approach is easily transferable and applicable in a classification system. Classification performances on English-language competition data sets consisting of emails and articles and Turkish-language web documents consisting of blogs, articles and tweets indicate that our approach is very competitive to top-performing approaches in English competition data sets and is significantly improving the top classification performance in mixed-domain experiments on blogs, articles and tweets.
KestemontMStoverJKoppelM, et al. Authenticating the writings of Julius Caesar. Expert Syst Appl2016; 63: 86–96.
2.
IqbalFHadjidjRFungBCM, et al. A novel approach of mining write-prints for authorship attribution in E-mail forensics. Digit Invest2008; 5: S42–S51.
3.
RochaAScheirerWJForstallCW, et al. Authorship attribution for social media forensics. IEEE T Inf Foren Sec2016; 12: 5–33.
4.
ZhangCWuXNiuZ, et al. Authorship identification from unstructured texts. Knowl Based Syst2014; 66: 99–111.
5.
ArgamonSJuolaP. Overview of the international authorship identification competition. In: Proceedings of the notebook papers of CLEF 2011 labs and workshops, Amsterdam, 19–22 September 2011.
6.
StamatatosEFakotakisNKokkinakisG. Automatic text categorization in terms of genre and author. Comput Linguist2000; 26: 471–495.
7.
SavoyJ. Authorship attribution based on specific vocabulary. ACM Trans Inf Syst2012; 30: 1–30.
8.
ShalymovDGranichinOKlebanovL, et al. Literary writing style recognition via a minimal spanning tree-based approach. Expert Syst Appl2016; 61: 145–153.
9.
AmelinKGranichinOKizhaevaN, et al. Patterning of writing style evolution by means of dynamic similarity. Pattern Recogn2018; 77: 45–64.
10.
StamatatosEDaelemansWVerhoevenB, et al. Overview of the author identification task at PAN 2014. In: Proceedings of the CLEF 2014 evaluation labs and workshop – working notes papers, Sheffield, 18 September 2014, pp. 877–897, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1180/CLEF2014wn-Pan-StamatosEt2014.pdf
11.
StamatatosE. A survey of modern authorship attribution methods. Q J Speech2009; 29: 167–172.
12.
AbbasiAChenH. Writeprints: a stylometric approach to identity-level identification and similarity detection in cyberspace. ACM Trans Inf Syst2008; 26: 1–29.
13.
KoppelMSchlerJArgamonS. Computational methods in authorship attribution. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2008; 60: 9–26.
14.
KestemontM. Function words in authorship attribution from black magic to theory? In: Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on computational linguistics for literature, Gothenburg, 2014, pp. 59–66, https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W14-0908
15.
SapkotaUBethardSSolorioMMGT. Not all character n-grams are created equal: a study in authorship attribution. In: Proceedings of the 2015 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, Denver, CO, 31 May–5 June 2015, pp. 93–102. Association for Computational Linguistics, https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/N15-1010
SapkotaU. Improving the performance of cross-domain authorship attribution. PhD Thesis, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, 2015.
18.
EscalanteHJSolorioTMontes-Y-GómezM. Local histograms of character n-grams for authorship attribution. In: Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, Portland, OR, 19–24 June 2011, pp. 288–298. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
19.
ZhengRLiJChenH, et al. A framework for authorship identification of online messages: writing-style features and classification techniques. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2006; 57: 378–393.
20.
MarkovIStamatatosESidorovG. Improving cross-topic authorship attribution: the role of pre-processing. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on computational linguistics and intelligent text processing (CICLing 2017), Budapest, 17–23 April 2017.
21.
StamatatosE. Masking topic-related information to enhance authorship attribution. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2018; 69: 461–473.
22.
YangMChenXTuW, et al. A topic drift model for authorship attribution. Neurocomputing2018; 273: 133–140.
23.
BjörklundJZechnerN. Syntactic methods for topic-independent authorship attribution. Nat Lang Eng2017; 23: 789–806.
24.
SchwartzMB. An examination of cross-domain authorship attribution techniques. Master’s Thesis, City University of New York, New York, 2016.
25.
EdizkanRGülmezoMBErginS, et al. Improvements on common vector approach for multi class problems. In: Proceedings of the 13th European signal processing conference, Antalya, 4–8 September 2005, pp. 1–4. New York: IEEE.
26.
KoçMBarkanaAGerekÖN. A fast method for the implementation of common vector approach. Inf Sci2010; 180: 4084–4098.
27.
KibriyaAMFrankEPfahringerB, et al. Multinomial Naive Bayes for text categorization revisited. In: WebbGIYuX (eds) AI 2004: advances in artificial intelligence – AI 2004: lecture notes in computer science. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2004, pp. 488–499.
28.
NgAYJordanMI. On discriminative vs. generative classifiers: a comparison of logistic regression and naive Bayes. Neural Process Lett2008; 28: 169–187.
29.
HastieTFriedmanJTibshiraniR. Linear methods for classification. In: HastieTFriedmanJTibshiraniR (eds) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2001, pp. 79–113.
30.
SebastianiF. Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Comput Surv2002; 34: 1–47.
31.
QuinlanJR. C4. 5: programs for machine learning. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2014.
32.
BishopCM. Neural networks for pattern recognition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
33.
IşıkŞÖzkanKGerekÖN, et al. A new subspace based solution to background modelling and change detection. Int J Intell Syst Appl Eng2016; 1485–1490: 82–86. DOI: 10.18201/ijisae.267148.
34.
CevikalpHNeamtuMWilkesM, et al. Discriminative common vectors for face recognition. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell2005; 27: 4–13.
35.
GulmezogluMBDzhafarovVKeskinM, et al. A novel approach to isolated word recognition. IEEE Trans Speech Audio Process1999; 7: 620–628.
36.
BugnionP. Scala for data science. Birmingham: Packt Publishing Ltd, 2016.
37.
PotthastMBraunSBuzT, et al. Who wrote the web? Revisiting influential author identification research applicable to information retrieval. In: FerroNCrestaniFMoensM-F, et al. (eds) Advances in information retrieval (ECIR 2016), Cham: Springer, 2016, pp. 393–407.
38.
KourtisIStamatatosE. Author identification using semi-supervised learning. In: Proceedings of the 2011 conference on multilingual and multimodal information access evaluation lab and workshop notebook papers (CLEF, 2011), Amsterdam, 19–22 September 2011.
39.
TanguyLUrieliACalderoneB, et al. A multitude of linguistically-rich features for authorship attribution. In: Proceedings of CEUR workshop, Amsterdam, 19–22 October 2011.
