Overview of PAN 2018. Author identification, author profiling, and author obfuscation

[EN] PAN 2018 explores several authorship analysis tasks enabling a systematic comparison of competitive approaches and advancing research in digital text forensics.More specifically, this edition of PAN introduces a shared task in cross-domain authorship attribution, where texts of known and unknow...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Stamatatos, Efstathios, Rangel-Pardo, Francisco Manuel, Tschuggnall, Michael, Stein, Benno, Kestemont, Mike, Potthast, Martin, Rosso, Paolo
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2018
País:España
Institución:Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV)
Repositorio:RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:riunet.upv.es:10251/120698
Acceso en línea:https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/120698
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Author identification
Author profiling
Author obfuscation
LENGUAJES Y SISTEMAS INFORMATICOS
Descripción
Sumario:[EN] PAN 2018 explores several authorship analysis tasks enabling a systematic comparison of competitive approaches and advancing research in digital text forensics.More specifically, this edition of PAN introduces a shared task in cross-domain authorship attribution, where texts of known and unknown authorship belong to distinct domains, and another task in style change detection that distinguishes between single author and multi-author texts. In addition, a shared task in multimodal author profiling examines, for the first time, a combination of information from both texts and images posted by social media users to estimate their gender. Finally, the author obfuscation task studies how a text by a certain author can be paraphrased so that existing author identification tools are confused and cannot recognize the similarity with other texts of the same author. New corpora have been built to support these shared tasks. A relatively large number of software submissions (41 in total) was received and evaluated. Best paradigms are highlighted while baselines indicate the pros and cons of submitted approaches.