The paper introduces a new authorship attribution model that represents each author with multiple consistent but distinct writing styles, rather than a single style profile. Experiments across four scenarios—audience size, temporal distance, preceding context, and genre norms—show that authors vary significantly in how idiolectic their writing is, and that certain settings yield text that is more informative about authorship. The authors demonstrate that modeling multiple styles per author leads to significant performance improvements over traditional single-style approaches.
By Omkar Yadav, Michael Jiang, Kenan Alkiek, Jian Zhu, David Jurgens
Authorship verification (AV) assumes that an author's writing style remains sufficiently stable to distinguish it from that of other writers. In practice, however, this assumption is challenged by dis...
The paper "Evaluating Style-Personalized Text Generation: Challenges and Directions" examines the difficulties of assessing text that is tailored to individual users’ styles. It critiques common metrics such as BLEU, embeddings, and LLM-as-judges, and introduces a style discrimination benchmark covering domain discrimination, authorship attribution, and LLM-generated personalized versus non-personalized discrimination across eight writing tasks. The study finds that ensembles of diverse evaluation metrics outperform single-evaluator approaches and offers guidance for reliable assessment of style-personalized generation.
By Anubhav Jangra, Bahareh Sarrafzadeh, Silviu Cucerzan, Adrian de Wynter, Sujay Kumar Jauhar
The study examines how professional English editing influences AI text detectors’ false-positive rates for non-native academic writing. Using 135,389 pairs of original and edited manuscripts, researchers found that detector responses varied widely—some editors increased AI scores while others decreased them—and that score changes correlated with the extent of editing. These results highlight professional editing style as a key confounding factor in AI detection, complicating the distinction between AI authorship and linguistic style.
By Hyeonchu Park, Gahye Jeong, Bugeun Kim
The paper evaluates how well six popular large language models can imitate the writing style of individual authors using short product reviews. Two prompt styles—simple and stylometric—were tested, and authorship mimicry was measured with cosine distance and embedding visualisations. Results show that while Gemini 3 Pro performed best, it largely copied training text, and overall most models struggled to converge on target author style, highlighting the need to differentiate genuine imitation from direct reuse.
By Harshit Gupta, Shunichi Ishihara
Personalized text generation for authors and literary writing is essential for applications such as adaptive writing assistants, creative support tools, and computational literary analysis. However, e...
arXiv:2608.23124v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Personalized text generation for authors and literary writing is essential for applications such as adaptive writing assistants, creative support too...
By Jinghui Zhang, Lang Gao, Ao Li, Mingzhe Li, Ruihong Zeng, Zirui Song, Kentaro Inui, Xiuying Chen
arXiv:2510.08831v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: As AI writing tools become widespread, we need to understand how both humans and machines evaluate literary style, a domain where objective standar...
By Wouter Haverals, Meredith Martin
The paper introduces a training‑free method for uncovering prompt‑conditional stylistic axes in large language models (LLMs). By repeatedly sampling completions of a single prompt at high temperature and applying Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to the pooled hidden activations, the authors automatically label the resulting axes using the extreme (pole) generations. Validation against 245 human‑elicited stylistic annotations shows that, for the Qwen‑3.5‑4B‑Instruct model, the top two axes align with human dimensions with 72.8% precision and 43.6% macro‑recall, and 75.6% of validity ratings confirm the axes’ polar generations, while other models exhibit varying degrees of discoverability.
By Ajit Mallavarapu, Ziwei Gu
The paper introduces VOLM, a framework that quantifies how much original value a human adds to a document beyond what a language model could generate from a task description alone. Unlike existing tools that focus on stylistic detection, VOLM extracts content at varying granularities, reconstructs it with an LLM, and compares these reconstructions to those derived from the task description. Evaluations across news articles, ICLR peer reviews, and argumentative essays show that VOLM can distinguish human-authored texts from LLM-generated ones while remaining robust to content-preserving transformations.
By Vibhhu Sharma, Thorsten Joachims, Sarah Dean
arXiv:2608. 19746v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Personalized text generation aims to make LLMs write in a specific individual's style, yet existing benchmarks measure task accuracy or preference alignment rather than whether the model's output actually resembles the target author's writing.
By Yash Ganpat Sawant
The study demonstrates that text produced by large language models (LLMs) leaves a distinct stylometric footprint—primarily increased entropy and lexical diversity—across multiple models and domains. In contrast, AI editing of human text does not replicate this footprint; edited texts show only modest lexical diversity gains and reduced entropy, with lexical density emerging as the key distinguishing feature. Consequently, stylometric analysis can differentiate AI-generated from AI-edited content, but is less effective at distinguishing either from purely human writing.
By Zhengyang Shan, Yukyung Lee, Sophie Hao