From Small to Large Language Models: Revisiting the Federalist Papers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.01869v2
• Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 00:37:11 GMT
• Title: From Small to Large Language Models: Revisiting the Federalist Papers
• Authors: So Won Jeong, Veronika Ročková,
• Abstract summary: We review some of the more popular Large Language Model (LLM) tools and examine them from a statistical point of view in the context of text classification.<n>We investigate whether, without any attempt to fine-tune, the general embedding constructs can be useful for stylometry and attribution.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: For a long time, the authorship of the Federalist Papers had been a subject of inquiry and debate, not only by linguists and historians but also by statisticians. In what was arguably the first Bayesian case study, Mosteller and Wallace (1963) provided the first statistical evidence for attributing all disputed papers to Madison. Our paper revisits this historical dataset but from a lens of modern language models, both small and large. We review some of the more popular Large Language Model (LLM) tools and examine them from a statistical point of view in the context of text classification. We investigate whether, without any attempt to fine-tune, the general embedding constructs can be useful for stylometry and attribution. We explain differences between various word/phrase embeddings and discuss how to aggregate them in a document. Contrary to our expectations, we exemplify that dimension expansion with word embeddings may not always be beneficial for attribution relative to dimension reduction with topic embeddings. Our experiments demonstrate that default LLM embeddings (even after manual fine-tuning) may not consistently improve authorship attribution accuracy. Instead, Bayesian analysis with topic embeddings trained on ``function words" yields superior out-of-sample classification performance. This suggests that traditional (small) statistical language models, with their interpretability and solid theoretical foundation, can offer significant advantages in authorship attribution tasks. The code used in this analysis is available at github.com/sowonjeong/slm-to-llm

Related papers

• A Bayesian Approach to Harnessing the Power of LLMs in Authorship Attribution [57.309390098903]
  Authorship attribution aims to identify the origin or author of a document. Large Language Models (LLMs) with their deep reasoning capabilities and ability to maintain long-range textual associations offer a promising alternative. Our results on the IMDb and blog datasets show an impressive 85% accuracy in one-shot authorship classification across ten authors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T04:14:23Z)
• CausalCite: A Causal Formulation of Paper Citations [80.82622421055734]
  CausalCite is a new way to measure the significance of a paper by assessing the causal impact of the paper on its follow-up papers. It is based on a novel causal inference method, TextMatch, which adapts the traditional matching framework to high-dimensional text embeddings. We demonstrate the effectiveness of CausalCite on various criteria, such as high correlation with paper impact as reported by scientific experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-05T23:09:39Z)
• On Context Utilization in Summarization with Large Language Models [83.84459732796302]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel in abstractive summarization tasks, delivering fluent and pertinent summaries. Recent advancements have extended their capabilities to handle long-input contexts, exceeding 100k tokens. We conduct the first comprehensive study on context utilization and position bias in summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-16T16:45:12Z)
• It's All Relative: Interpretable Models for Scoring Bias in Documents [10.678219157857946]
  We propose an interpretable model to score the bias present in web documents, based only on their textual content. Our model incorporates assumptions reminiscent of the Bradley-Terry axioms and is trained on pairs of revisions of the same Wikipedia article. We show that we can interpret the parameters of the trained model to discover the words most indicative of bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-16T19:35:38Z)
• Syntax and Semantics Meet in the "Middle": Probing the Syntax-Semantics Interface of LMs Through Agentivity [68.8204255655161]
  We present the semantic notion of agentivity as a case study for probing such interactions. This suggests LMs may potentially serve as more useful tools for linguistic annotation, theory testing, and discovery.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T16:24:01Z)
• Efficient and Flexible Topic Modeling using Pretrained Embeddings and Bag of Sentences [1.8592384822257952]
  We propose a novel topic modeling and inference algorithm. We leverage pre-trained sentence embeddings by combining generative process models and clustering. TheTailor evaluation shows that our method yields state-of-the art results with relatively little computational demands.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T20:13:11Z)
• The Change that Matters in Discourse Parsing: Estimating the Impact of Domain Shift on Parser Error [14.566990078034241]
  We use a statistic from the theoretical domain adaptation literature which can be directly tied to error-gap. We study the bias of this statistic as an estimator of error-gap both theoretically and through a large-scale empirical study of over 2400 experiments on 6 discourse datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-21T20:04:23Z)
• Mitigating Racial Biases in Toxic Language Detection with an Equity-Based Ensemble Framework [9.84413545378636]
  Recent research has demonstrated how racial biases against users who write African American English exist in popular toxic language datasets. We propose additional descriptive fairness metrics to better understand the source of these biases. We show that our proposed framework substantially reduces the racial biases that the model learns from these datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-27T15:54:05Z)
• Toward the Understanding of Deep Text Matching Models for Information Retrieval [72.72380690535766]
  This paper aims at testing whether existing deep text matching methods satisfy some fundamental gradients in information retrieval. Specifically, four attributions are used in our study, i.e., term frequency constraint, term discrimination constraint, length normalization constraints, and TF-length constraint. Experimental results on LETOR 4.0 and MS Marco show that all the investigated deep text matching methods satisfy the above constraints with high probabilities in statistics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-16T13:33:15Z)
• Author Clustering and Topic Estimation for Short Texts [69.54017251622211]
  We propose a novel model that expands on the Latent Dirichlet Allocation by modeling strong dependence among the words in the same document. We also simultaneously cluster users, removing the need for post-hoc cluster estimation. Our method performs as well as -- or better -- than traditional approaches to problems arising in short text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-15T20:55:55Z)
• The Authors Matter: Understanding and Mitigating Implicit Bias in Deep Text Classification [36.361778457307636]
  Deep text classification models can produce biased outcomes for texts written by authors of certain demographic groups. In this paper, we first demonstrate that implicit bias exists in different text classification tasks for different demographic groups. We then build a learning-based interpretation method to deepen our knowledge of implicit bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-06T16:17:38Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.