arXiv AI By Harshit Gupta, Shunichi Ishihara

How Well Can Large Language Models Impersonate Individual Authors? A Comparative Evaluation

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Computation and Language
4d ago

Consistent yet Contextual: Learning Author-Level Mixtures of Style for Authorship Attribution

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
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 2

Evaluating Style-Personalized Text Generation: Challenges and Directions

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
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 15

Who's Behind the Text? Robust Model Authorship Attribution

The paper introduces ATLAS, a likelihood‑based method for model authorship attribution (MAA) that learns how each source family generates text and attributes new text by comparing token‑level likelihoods. It also presents MAABench, a benchmark for evaluating MAA under out‑of‑distribution scenarios such as unseen domains and future model versions. Experiments show ATLAS outperforms existing baselines, achieving 74.27% accuracy on the hardest MAABench setting and correctly identifying teacher models in distillation experiments.

By Minseok Ko, Hyunseok Lee, Woomin Song, Beomjun Kim, Jinwoo Shin, Kunwoong Kim