Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

CAVE: Controllable Authorship Verification Explanations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.16672 v3 pith:L6RQ6HO7 submitted 2024-06-24 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords caveexplanationsmodelofflineauthorshipdataverificationaccessible
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Authorship Verification (AV) (do two documents have the same author?) is essential in many real-life applications. AV is often used in privacy-sensitive domains that require an offline proprietary model that is deployed on premises, making publicly served online models (APIs) a suboptimal choice. Current offline AV models however have lower downstream utility due to limited accuracy (eg: traditional stylometry AV systems) and lack of accessible post-hoc explanations. In this work, we address the above challenges by developing a trained, offline model CAVE (Controllable Authorship Verification Explanations). CAVE generates free-text AV explanations that are controlled to be (1) accessible (uniform structure that can be decomposed into sub-explanations grounded to relevant linguistic features), and (2) easily verified for explanation-label consistency. We generate silver-standard training data grounded to the desirable linguistic features by a prompt-based method Prompt-CAVE. We then filter the data based on rationale-label consistency using a novel metric Cons-R-L. Finally, we fine-tune a small, offline model (Llama-3-8B) with this data to create our model CAVE. Results on three difficult AV datasets show that CAVE generates high quality explanations (as measured by automatic and human evaluation) as well as competitive task accuracy.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Trends and Challenges in Authorship Analysis: A Review of ML, DL, and LLM Approaches

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A systematic review of 93 papers on authorship analysis, summarizing ML, DL, and LLM methods, datasets, and open challenges from 2015 to 2024.

Pith tools