=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1177/CLEF2011wn-PAN-KernEt2011
|storemode=property
|title=Vote/Veto Meta-Classifier for Authorship Identification - Notebook for PAN at CLEF 2011
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1177/CLEF2011wn-PAN-KernEt2011.pdf
|volume=Vol-1177
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/clef/KernSZG11
}}
==Vote/Veto Meta-Classifier for Authorship Identification - Notebook for PAN at CLEF 2011==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1177/CLEF2011wn-PAN-KernEt2011.pdf
Vote/Veto Meta-Classifier for Authorship Identification
Notebook for PAN at CLEF 2011
Roman Kern1 , Christin Seifert1 , Mario Zechner2 , and Michael Granitzer1,2
1
Institute of Knowledge Management
Graz University of Technology
{rkern, christin.seifert}@tugraz.at
2
Know-Center GmbH
{mzechner, mgrani}@know-center.at
Abstract For the PAN 2011 authorship identification challenge we have devel-
oped a system based on a meta-classifier which selectively uses the results of
multiple base classifiers. In addition we also performed feature engineering based
on the given domain of e-mails. We present our system as well as results on the
evaluation dataset. Our system performed second and third best in the authorship
attribution task on the large data sets, and ranked middle for the small data set in
the attribution task and in the verification task.
1 Introduction
The PAN 2011 challenge tackled the problem of authorship identification [5,12]. Two
different task were given for this domain. The first task was an authorship attribution
task. The goal of this task has been to identify the author of a previously unseen text
from a set of candidate authors. The second task was authorship verification. The goal
of authorship verification is to verify whether a text of unknown authorship was written
by a specific (given) author.
We focused on the authorship attribution task and did not directly address the au-
thorship verification problem setting. Instead, we applied the pipeline developed in the
authorship attribution task to the verification task. The source code is open source and
available for download3 .
2 Authorship Attribution System Overview
Our authorship identification systems consists of two main stages. In the first stage
we analyze each author’s documents and generate multiple sets of features for each
document. In the second stage we train multiple classification models for each author
based on these feature sets. We then combine these models to assign author names to
unseen documents. The system was trained on the PAN authorship attribution develop-
ment dataset. This dataset exclusively consists of e-mails, which allows us to employ
some assumptions. The following list gives an overview of the stages and the sections
describing the stages in detail:
3
https://knowminer.at/svn/opensource/projects/pan2011/trunk
1. Document analysis and feature set generation
(a) Preprocessing and feature generation, see section 2.1
(b) Calculating additional statistics from external resources, see section 2.2
(c) Weighting feature values, see section 2.3
(d) Creating feature spaces, see section 2.4
2. Classifier training, see section 2.5
2.1 Preprocessing and Feature Generation
The task of the preprocessing step is to analyze the e-mail content (plain text) and to
store the result alongside the document. Out of these so called annotations, the features
will be generated in consecutive processing stages. The preprocessing pipeline consists
of several components which are executed in a fixed sequence. The pipeline is individ-
ually applied to each document. Each annotation class will briefly be covered in the
following section.
Text Line and Block Annotations: The first pre-processing of the text splits the con-
tent of each document into lines. Line endings are identified via the newline character.
Multiple consecutive, non-empty lines are merged into text blocks. The text block an-
notations try to capture the layout of an e-mail message. All succeeding pre-processing
steps operate on individual text-blocks.
Natural Language Annotations: We employ the open-source Java library OpenNLP4
and the available maximum entropy models to split the text blocks into tokens and sen-
tences. For each token we generated alternative representations. At first the characters
of the token are normalized to lower-case. Next, the tokens are stemmed by applying
the Snowball stemmer5 . Finally all tokens are scanned for stop-words. Stop-words are
detected by checking tokens against a set of predefined stop words from the Snowball
stemmer project. Additionally we mark tokens with more than 50% non-letter charac-
ters as stop-words. Finally we annotate the part-of-speech tag for each token, again
using the respective OpenNLP classifier and model for the English language.
Slang-Word Annotations Based on the intuition that e-mails may contain an Internet
specific vocabulary we have developed an annotator tailored towards this kind of writ-
ing style. This annotator is based on gazetteer-lists6 of three different kinds of words
expected to be found within a document written in the “Internet” writing style:
– Smilies: A list of common smilies7 .
– Internet Slang: A list of words that are regularly used within online conversations8 .
– Swear-Words: A list of swear words has been collected similar to the other two
gazetteer lists9 .
4
http://maxent.sourceforge.net
5
http://snowball.tartarus.org
6
All resources have been crawled on 2011-05-12
7
http://piology.org/smiley.txt
8
http://www.noslang.com/dictionary/full
9
http://www.noswearing.com/dictionary
The usefulness of such annotations depends on the presence of such words in the docu-
ment set. Manual inspection of a sample of the documents reveals that smilies and other
Internet specific terminology is hardly used by the authors of the training data set.
Grammar Annotations The final set of annotations have been developed motivated by
the intuition that the writing style of people varies in the grammatical complexity of the
sentences. For example some people prefer short sentences and a simple grammatical
structure, while others may prefer to construct complex sentences with many inter-
jections. Grammatical relations have been used in the past to exploit the grammatical
structure of sentences [8]. For our authorship identification system we employed the
Stanford Parser [9] to produce the sentence parse tree, the sentence phrases, as well as
to identify the typed grammatical relationships [10]. These informations are then added
as annotations to the document.
2.2 Calculating Statistics from External Resources
For many term weighting approaches the commonness of a word plays an important
part. As it is not clear whether the training set is large enough to derive reliable statistics,
we incorporated an external resource to generate this information: We parsed the Open
American National Corpus (OANC)10 to gain global statistics of the usage of words.
This corpus consists of many different kinds of documents and writing styles. Many of
the contained documents are rather long. Therefore we employed a text segmentation
algorithm [6] to split long document into smaller, coherent parts.
2.3 Feature Value Weighting
We developed multiple normalization and weighting strategies to allow a customizable
representation of the frequency based document features. Finding the best suited feature
weighting function for a given feature-space is an important aspect of feature engineer-
ing. This is especially true for information retrieval applications, but also applies on
supervised machine learning. Depending on the feature space different strategies may
lead to better performance of the classifier.
Binary Feature Value A numeric feature value is transformed into a binary value based
on a given threshold. In our current system configuration the input to this normalization
step is a term-count and the threshold is 1.
Locally Weighted Feature Value A more general approach than the binary feature value
normalization is the application of an unary operation to a numeric feature value. In the
current version we apply the sqrt(x) function on the feature value x (e.g. term-count).
10
http://www.americannationalcorpus.org/OANC/index.html
Externally Weighted Feature Value For the authorship identification we adapted a weight-
ing scheme which is rooted on the well-known BM-25 retrieval model[11] - although
we replaced the length normalization as the data set is expected to be vastly different
to the OANC corpus. Additionally to the commonness of a term we also integrated the
dispersion of its occurrences, which has proven to be beneficial to capture the semantics
of short text documents [7].
For a term x, the equation of the global weighting function incorporates the feature
value tfx , the number of documents N in the OANC corpus, the number of documents
the term occurs in dfx , the length of the current document and the dispersion of the term
DP (x):
p log(N − dfx + 0.5) 1
wext = tfx ∗ ∗√ ∗ DP (x)−0.3 (1)
dfx + 0.5 length
Globally Weighted Feature Value Another weighting strategy uses the training doc-
uments to calculate the document frequency of features. In contrast to the external
weighting scheme, the term dispersion is not integrated into the weighting function.
The equation for the global weighting incorporates the number of training document N
and the number of documents the term occurs in.
p log(N − dfx + 0.5) 1
wglobal = tfx ∗ ∗√ (2)
dfx + 0.5 length
Purity Weighted Feature Value The final weighting strategy is a derivative of the global
weighting function. Instead of using the individual documents of the training set, we
concatenate all documents from each author into one single document. Thus, for each
author there is one document which contains all terms that have been used by this au-
thor. The weight calculation is identical to the global weighting scheme. As the weight-
ing will generate the highest values if a term is only used by a single author, we refer to
this weighting scheme as a measure of purity. In the equation the term |A| denotes the
number of authors and afx denotes the number of authors who have used the term at
least once.
p log(|A| − afx + 0.5) 1
wpurity = tfx ∗ ∗√ (3)
afx + 0.5 length
2.4 Feature Spaces
Our system produces two kinds of feature spaces. The first three feature-spaces (basic
statistics, token statistics and grammar statistics) represent statistical properties of the
documents. The range of the values for each of the features depends on the statistic
property. Each of the remaining feature spaces represent a vector space model, where
each feature corresponds to a single term. We conducted a series of evaluations based
on the training set to find the best suited weighting strategy for each of these feature-
spaces. In the following construction of the feature spaces is described in detail.
Basic Statistics Feature Space The first feature space captures basic statistics of the
layout and organization of the documents. Additionally these feature spaces also carry
information of the sentences and token annotations. Table 1 lists the features of this
feature space.
Table 1. Overview of the features of the basic statistics feature space.
Feature Description
number-of-lines Number of lines
number-of-characters Number of characters
number-of-tokens Number of tokens
number-of-sentences Number of sentences
number-of-text-blocks Number of text-block annotations
number-of-text-lines Number of lines containing more the 50% letter charac-
ters
number-of-shout-lines Number of lines containing more than 50% upper-case
characters
#emptylines
empty-lines-ratio number−of −lines
number−of −text−lines
text-lines-ratio number−of −lines
mean-line-length Average number of characters per line
mean-nonempty-line-length Average number of character per non-empty line
max-line-length Number of characters of the longest line within the doc-
ument
number−of −text−blocks
text-blocks-to-lines-ratio number−of −lines
{max,mean}-text-block-line-length Number of lines per text-block (maximum, average)
{max,mean}-text-block-char-length Number of characters per text-block (maximum, aver-
age)
{max,mean}-text-block-token-length Number of tokens per text-block (maximum, average)
{max,mean}-text-block-sentence-length Number of sentences per text-block (maximum, aver-
age)
{max,mean}-tokens-in-sentence Number of tokens per sentence (maximum, average)
{max,mean}-punctuations-in-sentence Number of punctuations per sentence, in relation to the
number of tokens (maximum, average)
{max,mean}-words-in-sentence Number of words per sentence, in relation to the number
of tokens (maximum, average)
number-of-punctuations Number of tokens tagged as punctuations
number-of-stopwords Number of tokens marked as stop word
number-of-words Number of non-punctuation tokens
capitalletterwords-words-ratio Ratio of number of words with at least one capital letter
divided by the number of words
capitalletter-character-ratio Ratio of capital letters divided by the total number of
characters
Token Statistics Feature Space The token and the part-of-speech (POS) annotations
build the base for the token statistics feature space. For this feature space only a re-
stricted set of word classes, namely adjectives, adverbs, verbs and nouns, are evaluated.
For each POS tag a feature is generated and its value reflects the relative number of
times this tag has been detected in relation to all tokens. Furthermore the average length
of all tokens for each tag is collected. Finally a set of features encodes the histogram of
token length. Table 2 gives an overview of the features of this feature-space.
Table 2. Overview of the features of the token statistics feature-space.
token-length Average number of characters of each token
token- Relative frequency of each POS tag
token-length- Average number of characters of each token for each POS tag
token-length-[01-20] Relative number of tokens for the range between 1 and 20 characters
Grammar Statistics Feature-Space From the grammatical annotations a set of features
have been generated. This grammar statistics feature space captures the difference in
the richness of grammatical constructions of different authors. Furthermore this fea-
ture space is motivated by the assumption that individual writing styles differ in the
complexity of sentences. Table 3 summarizes these features.
Slang- Word Feature Space The slang-word annotations are transformed into an own
feature space. The values of the features are incremented for each occurrence of a slang
word (Internet slang, smiley or swear word).
Pronoun Feature Space Based on the hypothesis that different people prefer different
pronouns, we constructed a specific feature space. As with the slang-word features,
each occurrence of a pronoun is counted. Finally for each document this feature-space
contains the frequency of all used pronouns.
Stop Word Feature Space All tokens marked as stop-word are counted and collected.
They form the stop-word feature space. In contrast to the previous two feature spaces,
the occurrence counters are not directly used. Instead the binary feature value transfor-
mation is applied. Thus this feature space only captures whether a document contains a
specific stop word, or not.
Pure Unigrams Feature Space All tokens, which have not been marked as stop-word
or punctuation, are used to create the pure unigram feature space. Again the raw oc-
currence counter for each token are further processed. For this feature-space the purity
based feature weighting strategy is applied. Therefore the values of this feature-space
are in inverse proportion to the number of author who use a specific word.
Bigrams Feature Space Some authors may have the tendency to reuse specific phrases,
a property which is not captured by the previously introduced feature spaces. Therefore
we created the bigram feature space (two consecutive terms represent a single feature).
For this feature-space we apply the local feature weighting strategy.
Intro-Outro Feature-Space It can be observed that some people have the tendency to
reuse the same phrase to start and end their e-mails. In our authorship identification sys-
tem we have developed a simple heuristic to generate a feature-space for these phrases.
For each document the first and last text-block is inspected. If any of these text-blocks
consists of less than 3 lines and less than 50 characters per line, its terms are added to the
feature-space. Finally these features are weighted using the external feature weighting
strategy.
Table 3. Feature generated out of the grammatical annotations. The values for the phrase types
() and relation types () are directly taken from the parser component.
sentence-tree-depth Average depth of the sentence parse tree for all sentences
phrase-count Average number of phrases as detected by the parser
phrase--ratio Relative number of a specific phrase type (noun-phrase, verb-phrase, ...)
relation--ratio Relative number of a specific grammatical dependency type
Term Feature Space The final feature-space of our system is build using all tokens
of a document. For each token its occurrence counter is tracked. Finally the feature
values are processing using the weighting scheme which incorporates the commonness
of word via an external resource.
2.5 Classification Algorithms
We have integrated the open-source machine learning library WEKA [4] into our system
for the base classifiers. We have developed a meta classifier, which combines the results
of the underlying base classifiers.
Base Classifiers We use different classification algorithms for each feature space. The
configuration which has been used to produce the final result makes use of two differ-
ent base classifiers. For all three statistical feature-spaces we applied Bagging [1] with
Random Forests [2] as the base classifier. For the remaining feature-spaces, we used the
LibLinear classifier [3] setting the type to SVMTYPE_L2_LR in order to get posterior
probabilities of the classification results. For all classifiers, we used the default param-
eter settings of the library, and did not conduct any detailed analysis of the influence of
the parameters on the classifiers’ performance.
Meta Classifier The meta classifier combines the result of all base classifiers based on
their performance on the training set, as well as on the posterior probabilities. Each
of the base classifiers is trained using all documents from the training set, and 10-fold
cross-validation is performed. For each of the classes (authors in this case) contained in
the training set, the precision and recall on the cross-validated training set are recorded.
If the precision of a class exceeds a pre-defined threshold - tp - the base classifier is
allowed to vote for this class. For all classes where the recall is higher than another
threshold - tr - the classifier is permitted to vote against a class (veto). Additionally
each base classifier has a weight wc controlling its impact on the final classification.
Further, for unseen documents, the posterior probabilities of the base classifiers are
also evaluated to asses whether a base classifier’s result will be included in the final
prediction. If the probability for an author is higher than pp and the classifier is allowed
to vote for this author, the probability is multiplied by wc and added to the authors
score. If the probability is lower than pr (again assuming the classify may veto against
this author), the probability times the weight is subtracted from the authors score.
The classifier, which operates on the term feature space, is treated differently. The
classification results of this classifier are always used without any additional weighting
Table 4. Assessment of the base classifiers performance after the training phase. For each of the
voting authors the precision of the base classifier exceeds a threshold. For each of the veto authors
the recall of the base classifier has been higher than a pre-defined threshold.
Classifier #Authors Vote #Authors Veto
basic-stats 4 14
token-stats 5 7
grammar-stats 5 5
slang-words 3 2
pronoun 6 1
stop-words 4 10
intro-outro 25 11
pure-unigrams 6 15
bigrams 20 23
or filtering. Thus all predicted probabilities of this classifier will be added to the scores
of the authors.
Finally, the author with the highest score is considered to be the most probable au-
thor. In the evaluation section we report the performance of our meta-classifier using the
parameters: wc = 0.9, tp = 0.5, pp = 0.3, tr = 0.3, pr = 0.01. We conducted several
experiments to find the parameters values that provide the best performance. During
these evaluations we found that individual settings for each base classifier produced the
optimal results. But finally we decided to use a single set of parameters for all classi-
fiers as our experiments were conducted only on a single test corpus (LargeTrain) and
we want to (i) avoid any over-fitting problems, and (ii) keep an already complex system
as simple as possible.
3 Results
For brevity we only report the results of the evaluation achieved on the data-set labeled
as “LargeTrain”. Table 4 shows the number of votes an vetos of the different base clas-
sifiers. Table 5 summarizes the vote and veto performance of the base classifiers on the
validation data set.
Further our results were evaluated by the PAN team on unseen evaluation data sets.
The PAN author identification challenge consisted of two tasks: authorship attribution
and authorship verification. Altogether 17 runs were submitted by 12 different groups.
We focused on the authorship identification task and used the resulting system (as out-
lined in the previous section) for the verification task as well. We present the macro and
micro precision, recall and F1-meassure of our system on the four authorship attribution
datasets and the three authorship verification datasets in Table 6.
Our system performed second and third best in the authorship attribution task on
the large data sets, and ranked middle for the small data set in the attribution task and
in the verification task. On the author attribution datasets we compared very favorable
in terms of precision compared to the best ranked systems. Our macro recalls tended to
Table 5. Vote and Veto - Performance of the base classifiers on the TrainValid data-set.
Classifier Vote Accuracy Vote Count Veto Accuracy Veto Count
basic-stats 0.958 5141 1 252380
tokens-stats 0.985 1056 1 77492
grammar-stats 0.980 2576 1 89085
slang-words 0.819 94 0.997 9277
pronoun - 0 1 85
stop-words 0.532 1924 0.998 107544
intro-outro 0.826 2101 0.998 102431
pure-unigrams 0.995 186 0.999 35457
bigrams 0.999 6239 1 281442
be lower on average. Given that our system has not explicitly been developed for author
verification, it did perform acceptably for the first two verification datasets.
4 Conclusion and Future Work
We presented our system for authorship attribution in the context of the PAN 2011
author identification challenge. Our system is based on heavy feature engineering as
well as combining multiple classifiers in a unique way. In terms of feature engineering
we employed standard corpus statistics as well as features tailored towards the domain
of e-mails. In addition we also integrated features determined from annotations created
by a syntactical natural language parser.
Given this abundant number of different feature spaces we settled on a voting strat-
egy for classification in which we train base classifiers for each individual feature space
and apply voting and vetoing as well as weighting to form the classification model of
an author. These two stages proved to perform acceptably in the context of the PAN
challenge, especially in the case of the large author attribution data sets. Future work
will include the augmentation of our vetoing scheme with boosting and ensemble clas-
sification principles as well as applying our system to other domains.
Acknowledgement
The Know-Center is funded within the Austrian COMET Program under the auspices of the
Austrian Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology, the Austrian Ministry of Economics
and Labor and by the State of Styria. COMET is managed by the Austrian Research Promotion
Agency FFG.
References
1. Breiman, L.: Bagging predictors. Mach. Learn. 24, 123–140 (August 1996)
2. Breiman, L.: Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (October 2001)
Table 6. Macro & micro average precision, recall and F1 on the evaluation datasets. The last
column indicates our rank (out of 17) for the dataset compared to the other teams. Additionally
the relative difference to the highest rank run is given below each evaluation result.
Test Set Macro Prec Macro Recall Macro F1 Micro Prec Micro Recall Micro F1 Rank
LargeTest 0.615 0.442 0.465 0.642 0.642 0.642 2
+0.066 -0.090 -0.055 -0.016 -0.016 -0.016
LargeTest+ 0.673 0.179 0.226 0.802 0.383 0.518 3
-0.015 -0.088 -0.095 +0.023 -0.088 -0.069
SmallTest 0.79 0.345 0.348 0.685 0.685 0.685 5
+0.128 -0.106 -0.127 -0.032 -0.032 -0.032
SmallTest+ 1 0.03 0.05 1 0.095 0.173 8
+0.263 -0.131 -0.143 +0.176 -0.362 -0.415
Verify1 1 0.333 0.5 0 0 0 2
±0 ±0 ±0 ±0 ±0 ±0
Verify2 0.5 0.2 0.286 0 0 0 6
+0.100 -0.600 -0.247 ±0 ±0 ±0
Verify3 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
-0.211 -1.000 -0.348 ±0 ±0 ±0
3. Fan, R.E., Chang, K.W., Hsieh, C.J., Wang, X.R., Lin, C.J.: Liblinear: A library for large
linear classification. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 9, 1871–1874 (2008)
4. Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., Witten, I.H.: The weka data
mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 11, 10–18 (November 2009)
5. Juola, P.: Authorship attribution. Found. Trends Inf. Retr. 1, 233–334 (December 2006),
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1373450.1373451
6. Kern, R., Granitzer, M.: Efficient linear text segmentation based on information retrieval
techniques. In: MEDES ’09: Proceedings of the International Conference on Management
of Emergent Digital EcoSystems. pp. 167–171 (2009)
7. Kern, R., Granitzer, M.: German Encyclopedia Alignment Based on Information Retrieval
Techniques. In: Lalmas, M., Jose, J., Rauber, A., Sebastiani, F., Frommholz, I. (eds.)
Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries. pp. 315–326. Springer Berlin /
Heidelberg (2010)
8. Kern, R., Muhr, M., Granitzer, M.: KCDC: Word Sense Induction by Using Grammatical
Dependencies and Sentence Phrase Structure. In: Proceedings of SemEval-2. Uppsala,
Sweden, ACL (2010)
9. Klein, D., Manning, C.D.: Accurate unlexicalized parsing. Proceedings of the 41st Annual
Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - ACL ’03 pp. 423–430 (2003)
10. de Marneffe, M., MacCartney, B., Manning, C.: Generating typed dependency parses from
phrase structure parses. In: LREC 2006 (2006)
11. Robertson, S., Gatford, M.: Okapi at TREC-4. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Text Retrieval
Conference. pp. 73–97 (1996)
12. Stamatatos, E.: A survey of modern authorship attribution methods. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.
Technol. 60, 538–556 (March 2009),
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1527090.1527102