Re: Computerised authorship attribution
- From: "Ross Clement (Email address invalid - do not use)" <clemenr@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 Jan 2006 11:46:47 -0800
John Burrows' "Delta" technique is very simple and easy to understand,
and works very well. Same for Naive Bayes. Support Vector Machines also
work well. If your assignments allows it you could adapt the libSVM
code available for download from the university of Taiwan. In my
experience, simple nearest neighbours approaches do not work well.
However "Delta" is a nearest neighbour approach. CUSUM is "contentious"
to say the least. In any case it's a technique more suited to literary
experts as it requires you to edit the language of the original
documents ... the cause of much of the contention as it's possible to
edit the original text until it gives the result you expect. See papers
by David Holmes criticising CUSUM, or the book by Farringdon if you
want to see the case for it and a lot of details about it. See papers
in the journals "Literary and Linguistic Computing", "Computers and the
Humanities", and similar journals.
Cheers,
Ross-c
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Computerised authorship attribution
- From: Graham Jones
- Re: Computerised authorship attribution
- From: Matt B
- Re: Computerised authorship attribution
- References:
- Computerised authorship attribution
- From: Matt B
- Computerised authorship attribution
- Prev by Date: damped oscillations
- Next by Date: Does anyone have a permutation/combination macro for Excel?
- Previous by thread: Computerised authorship attribution
- Next by thread: Re: Computerised authorship attribution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|