Authorship Impersonation via LLM Prompting does not Evade Authorship Verification Methods

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29454v1
• Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:59:09 GMT
• Title: Authorship Impersonation via LLM Prompting does not Evade Authorship Verification Methods
• Abstract summary: Authorship verification is a critical part of forensic linguistics.<n>Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) raise new challenges.<n>This study investigates whether prompted LLMs can generate convincing authorial impersonations.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Authorship verification (AV), the task of determining whether a questioned text was written by a specific individual, is a critical part of forensic linguistics. While manual authorial impersonation by perpetrators has long been a recognized threat in historical forensic cases, recent advances in large language models (LLMs) raise new challenges, as adversaries may exploit these tools to impersonate another's writing. This study investigates whether prompted LLMs can generate convincing authorial impersonations and whether such outputs can evade existing forensic AV systems. Using GPT-4o as the adversary model, we generated impersonation texts under four prompting conditions across three genres: emails, text messages, and social media posts. We then evaluated these outputs against both non-neural AV methods (n-gram tracing, Ranking-Based Impostors Method, LambdaG) and neural approaches (AdHominem, LUAR, STAR) within a likelihood-ratio framework. Results show that LLM-generated texts failed to sufficiently replicate authorial individuality to bypass established AV systems. We also observed that some methods achieved even higher accuracy when rejecting impersonation texts compared to genuine negative samples. Overall, these findings indicate that, despite the accessibility of LLMs, current AV systems remain robust against entry-level impersonation attempts across multiple genres. Furthermore, we demonstrate that this counter-intuitive resilience stems, at least in part, from the higher lexical diversity and entropy inherent in LLM-generated texts.

Related papers

• Human Texts Are Outliers: Detecting LLM-generated Texts via Out-of-distribution Detection [71.59834293521074]
  We develop a framework to distinguish between human-authored and machine-generated text.<n>Our method achieves 98.3% AUROC and AUPR with only 8.9% FPR95 on DeepFake dataset.<n>Code, pretrained weights, and demo will be released.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T08:14:45Z)
• RepreGuard: Detecting LLM-Generated Text by Revealing Hidden Representation Patterns [50.401907401444404]
  Large language models (LLMs) are crucial for preventing misuse and building trustworthy AI systems.<n>We propose RepreGuard, an efficient statistics-based detection method.<n> Experimental results show that RepreGuard outperforms all baselines with average 94.92% AUROC on both in-distribution (ID) and OOD scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-18T17:59:15Z)
• Your Language Model Can Secretly Write Like Humans: Contrastive Paraphrase Attacks on LLM-Generated Text Detectors [77.82885394684202]
  We propose textbfContrastive textbfParaphrase textbfAttack (CoPA), a training-free method that effectively deceives text detectors.<n>CoPA constructs an auxiliary machine-like word distribution as a contrast to the human-like distribution generated by large language models.<n>Our theoretical analysis suggests the superiority of the proposed attack.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T10:08:39Z)
• ExaGPT: Example-Based Machine-Generated Text Detection for Human Interpretability [62.285407189502216]
  Detecting texts generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) could cause grave mistakes due to incorrect decisions.<n>We introduce ExaGPT, an interpretable detection approach grounded in the human decision-making process.<n>We show that ExaGPT massively outperforms prior powerful detectors by up to +40.9 points of accuracy at a false positive rate of 1%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T01:15:07Z)
• RAFT: Realistic Attacks to Fool Text Detectors [16.749257564123194]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable fluency across various tasks. Their unethical applications, such as disseminating disinformation, have become a growing concern. We present RAFT: a grammar error-free black-box attack against existing LLM detectors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T17:59:00Z)
• Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Investigating AI Text Detectability in Peer Review [8.606381080620789]
  We investigate the ability of existing AI text detection algorithms to distinguish between peer reviews written by humans and different state-of-the-art LLMs.<n>Our analysis shows that existing approaches fail to identify many GPT-4o written reviews without also producing a high number of false positive classifications.<n>We propose a new detection approach which surpasses existing methods in the identification of GPT-4o written peer reviews at low levels of false positive classifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T22:05:06Z)
• SeqXGPT: Sentence-Level AI-Generated Text Detection [62.3792779440284]
  We introduce a sentence-level detection challenge by synthesizing documents polished with large language models (LLMs) We then propose textbfSequence textbfX (Check) textbfGPT, a novel method that utilizes log probability lists from white-box LLMs as features for sentence-level AIGT detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T07:18:53Z)
• OUTFOX: LLM-Generated Essay Detection Through In-Context Learning with Adversarially Generated Examples [44.118047780553006]
  OUTFOX is a framework that improves the robustness of LLM-generated-text detectors by allowing both the detector and the attacker to consider each other's output. Experiments show that the proposed detector improves the detection performance on the attacker-generated texts by up to +41.3 points F1-score. The detector shows a state-of-the-art detection performance: up to 96.9 points F1-score, beating existing detectors on non-attacked texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-21T17:40:47Z)
• MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wild [82.70561073277801]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved human-level text generation, emphasizing the need for effective AI-generated text detection. We build a comprehensive testbed by gathering texts from diverse human writings and texts generated by different LLMs. Despite challenges, the top-performing detector can identify 86.54% out-of-domain texts generated by a new LLM, indicating the feasibility for application scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T17:13:29Z)

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.