Large language models (LLMs) present a dual challenge for forensic linguistics. They serve as powerful analytical tools enabling scalable corpus analysis and embedding-based authorship attribution, while simultaneously destabilising foundational assumptions about idiolect through style mimicry, authorship obfuscation, and the proliferation of synthetic texts. Recent stylometric research indicates that LLMs can approximate surface stylistic features yet exhibit detectable differences from human writers, a tension with significant forensic implications. However, current AI-text detection techniques, whether classifier-based, stylometric, or watermarking approaches, face substantial limitations: high false positive rates for non-native English writers and vulnerability to adversarial strategies such as homoglyph substitution. These uncertainties raise concerns under legal admissibility standards, particularly the Daubert and Kumho Tire frameworks. The article concludes that forensic linguistics requires methodological reconfiguration to remain scientifically credible and legally admissible. Proposed adaptations include hybrid human-AI workflows, explainable detection paradigms beyond binary classification, and validation regimes measuring error and bias across diverse populations. The discipline's core insight, i.e., that language reveals information about its producer, remains valid but must accommodate increasingly complex chains of human and machine authorship.

This article explores the zero-shot performance of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on one of the most challenging tasks in authorship analysis: sentence-level style change detection. Benchmarking four LLMs on the official PAN~2024 and 2025 "Multi-Author Writing Style Analysis" datasets, we present several observations. First, state-of-the-art generative models are sensitive to variations in writing style - even at the granular level of individual sentences. Second, their accuracy establishes a challenging baseline for the task, outperforming suggested baselines of the PAN competition. Finally, we explore the influence of semantics on model predictions and present evidence suggesting that the latest generation of LLMs may be more sensitive to content-independent and purely stylistic signals than previously reported.

Authorship analysis plays an important role in diverse domains, including forensic linguistics, academia, cybersecurity, and digital content authentication. This paper presents a systematic literature review on two key sub-tasks of authorship analysis; Author Attribution and Author Verification. The review explores SOTA methodologies, ranging from traditional ML approaches to DL models and LLMs, highlighting their evolution, strengths, and limitations, based on studies conducted from 2015 to 2024. Key contributions include a comprehensive analysis of methods, techniques, their corresponding feature extraction techniques, datasets used, and emerging challenges in authorship analysis. The study highlights critical research gaps, particularly in low-resource language processing, multilingual adaptation, cross-domain generalization, and AI-generated text detection. This review aims to help researchers by giving an overview of the latest trends and challenges in authorship analysis. It also points out possible areas for future study. The goal is to support the development of better, more reliable, and accurate authorship analysis system in diverse textual domain.

This paper evaluates the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in authorship attribution and authorship verification tasks for Latin texts of the Patristic Era. The study showcases that LLMs can be robust in zero-shot authorship verification even on short texts without sophisticated feature engineering. Yet, the models can also be easily "mislead" by semantics. The experiments also demonstrate that steering the model's authorship analysis and decision-making is challenging, unlike what is reported in the studies dealing with high-resource modern languages. Although LLMs prove to be able to beat, under certain circumstances, the traditional baselines, obtaining a nuanced and truly explainable decision requires at best a lot of experimentation.

Forensic authorship profiling uses linguistic markers to infer characteristics about an author of a text. This task is paralleled in dialect classification, where a prediction is made about the linguistic variety of a text based on the text itself. While there have been significant advances in recent years in variety classification, forensic linguistics rarely relies on these approaches due to their lack of transparency, among other reasons. In this paper we therefore explore the explainability of machine learning approaches considering the forensic context. We focus on variety classification as a means of geolinguistic profiling of unknown texts based on social media data from the German-speaking area. For this, we identify the lexical items that are the most impactful for the variety classification. We find that the extracted lexical features are indeed representative of their respective varieties and note that the trained models also rely on place names for classifications.

The ability to accurately identify authorship is crucial for verifying content authenticity and mitigating misinformation. Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capacity for reasoning and problem-solving. However, their potential in authorship analysis, encompassing authorship verification and attribution, remains underexplored. This paper conducts a comprehensive evaluation of LLMs in these critical tasks. Traditional studies have depended on hand-crafted stylistic features, whereas state-of-the-art approaches leverage text embeddings from pre-trained language models. These methods, which typically require fine-tuning on labeled data, often suffer from performance degradation in cross-domain applications and provide limited explainability. This work seeks to address three research questions: (1) Can LLMs perform zero-shot, end-to-end authorship verification effectively? (2) Are LLMs capable of accurately attributing authorship among multiple candidates authors (e.g., 10 and 20)? (3) How can LLMs provide explainability in authorship analysis, particularly through the role of linguistic features? Moreover, we investigate the integration of explicit linguistic features to guide LLMs in their reasoning processes. Our extensive assessment demonstrates LLMs' proficiency in both tasks without the need for domain-specific fine-tuning, providing insights into their decision-making via a detailed analysis of linguistic features. This establishes a new benchmark for future research on LLM-based authorship analysis. The code and data are available at https://github.com/baixianghuang/authorship-llm.

Authorship Analysis, also known as stylometry, has been an essential aspect of Natural Language Processing (NLP) for a long time. Likewise, the recent advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has made authorship analysis increasingly crucial for distinguishing between human-written and AI-generated texts. However, these authorship analysis tasks have primarily been focused on written texts, not considering spoken texts. Thus, we introduce the largest benchmark for spoken texts - HANSEN (Human ANd ai Spoken tExt beNchmark). HANSEN encompasses meticulous curation of existing speech datasets accompanied by transcripts, alongside the creation of novel AI-generated spoken text datasets. Together, it comprises 17 human datasets, and AI-generated spoken texts created using 3 prominent LLMs: ChatGPT, PaLM2, and Vicuna13B. To evaluate and demonstrate the utility of HANSEN, we perform Authorship Attribution (AA) & Author Verification (AV) on human-spoken datasets and conducted Human vs. AI spoken text detection using state-of-the-art (SOTA) models. While SOTA methods, such as, character ngram or Transformer-based model, exhibit similar AA & AV performance in human-spoken datasets compared to written ones, there is much room for improvement in AI-generated spoken text detection. The HANSEN benchmark is available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/HANSEN-REPO/HANSEN.

The rapidly growing volume of scientific publications offers an interesting challenge for research on methods for analyzing the authorship of documents with one or more authors. However, most existing datasets lack scientific documents or the necessary metadata for constructing new experiments and test cases. We introduce SMAuC, a comprehensive, metadata-rich corpus tailored to scientific authorship analysis. Comprising over 3 million publications across various disciplines from over 5 million authors, SMAuC is the largest openly accessible corpus for this purpose. It encompasses scientific texts from humanities and natural sciences, accompanied by extensive, curated metadata, including unambiguous author IDs. SMAuC aims to significantly advance the domain of authorship analysis in scientific texts.

We investigate the effects on authorship identification tasks of a fundamental shift in how to conceive the vectorial representations of documents that are given as input to a supervised learner. In ``classic'' authorship analysis a feature vector represents a document, the value of a feature represents (an increasing function of) the relative frequency of the feature in the document, and the class label represents the author of the document. We instead investigate the situation in which a feature vector represents an unordered pair of documents, the value of a feature represents the absolute difference in the relative frequencies (or increasing functions thereof) of the feature in the two documents, and the class label indicates whether the two documents are from the same author or not. This latter (learner-independent) type of representation has been occasionally used before, but has never been studied systematically. We argue that it is advantageous, and that in some cases (e.g., authorship verification) it provides a much larger quantity of information to the training process than the standard representation. The experiments that we carry out on several publicly available datasets (among which one that we here make available for the first time) show that feature vectors representing pairs of documents (that we here call Diff-Vectors) bring about systematic improvements in the effectiveness of authorship identification tasks, and especially so when training data are scarce (as it is often the case in real-life authorship identification scenarios). Our experiments tackle same-author verification, authorship verification, and closed-set authorship attribution; while DVs are naturally geared for solving the 1st, we also provide two novel methods for solving the 2nd and 3rd that use a solver for the 1st as a building block.

This paper is our attempt at answering a twofold question covering the areas of ethics and authorship analysis. Firstly, since the methods used for performing authorship analysis imply that an author can be recognized by the content he or she creates, we were interested in finding out whether it would be possible for an author identification system to correctly attribute works to authors if in the course of years they have undergone a major psychological transition. Secondly, and from the point of view of the evolution of an author's ethical values, we checked what it would mean if the authorship attribution system encounters difficulties in detecting single authorship. We set out to answer those questions through performing a binary authorship analysis task using a text classifier based on a pre-trained transformer model and a baseline method relying on conventional similarity metrics. For the test set, we chose works of Arata Osada, a Japanese educator and specialist in the history of education, with half of them being books written before the World War II and another half in the 1950s, in between which he underwent a transformation in terms of political opinions. As a result, we were able to confirm that in the case of texts authored by Arata Osada in a time span of more than 10 years, while the classification accuracy drops by a large margin and is substantially lower than for texts by other non-fiction writers, confidence scores of the predictions remain at a similar level as in the case of a shorter time span, indicating that the classifier was in many instances tricked into deciding that texts written over a time span of multiple years were actually written by two different people, which in turn leads us to believe that such a change can affect authorship analysis, and that historical events have great impact on a person's ethical outlook as expressed in their writings.