Quantifying Misattribution Unfairness in Authorship Attribution

Fuente: arXiv
Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Alipoormolabashi, Pegah, Patel, Ajay, Balasubramanian, Niranjan
Format: Preprint
Veröffentlicht: 2025
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
_version_ 1866908391265271808
author Alipoormolabashi, Pegah
Patel, Ajay
Balasubramanian, Niranjan
author_facet Alipoormolabashi, Pegah
Patel, Ajay
Balasubramanian, Niranjan
contents Authorship misattribution can have profound consequences in real life. In forensic settings simply being considered as one of the potential authors of an evidential piece of text or communication can result in undesirable scrutiny. This raises a fairness question: Is every author in the candidate pool at equal risk of misattribution? Standard evaluation measures for authorship attribution systems do not explicitly account for this notion of fairness. We introduce a simple measure, Misattribution Unfairness Index (MAUIk), which is based on how often authors are ranked in the top k for texts they did not write. Using this measure we quantify the unfairness of five models on two different datasets. All models exhibit high levels of unfairness with increased risks for some authors. Furthermore, we find that this unfairness relates to how the models embed the authors as vectors in the latent search space. In particular, we observe that the risk of misattribution is higher for authors closer to the centroid (or center) of the embedded authors in the haystack. These results indicate the potential for harm and the need for communicating with and calibrating end users on misattribution risk when building and providing such models for downstream use.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2506_02321
institution arXiv
publishDate 2025
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle Quantifying Misattribution Unfairness in Authorship Attribution
Alipoormolabashi, Pegah
Patel, Ajay
Balasubramanian, Niranjan
Computation and Language
Authorship misattribution can have profound consequences in real life. In forensic settings simply being considered as one of the potential authors of an evidential piece of text or communication can result in undesirable scrutiny. This raises a fairness question: Is every author in the candidate pool at equal risk of misattribution? Standard evaluation measures for authorship attribution systems do not explicitly account for this notion of fairness. We introduce a simple measure, Misattribution Unfairness Index (MAUIk), which is based on how often authors are ranked in the top k for texts they did not write. Using this measure we quantify the unfairness of five models on two different datasets. All models exhibit high levels of unfairness with increased risks for some authors. Furthermore, we find that this unfairness relates to how the models embed the authors as vectors in the latent search space. In particular, we observe that the risk of misattribution is higher for authors closer to the centroid (or center) of the embedded authors in the haystack. These results indicate the potential for harm and the need for communicating with and calibrating end users on misattribution risk when building and providing such models for downstream use.
title Quantifying Misattribution Unfairness in Authorship Attribution
topic Computation and Language
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.02321