Text Categorization for Authorship Attribution in English Poetry

  • Catherine GallagherEmail author
  • Yanjun Li
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 858)


Authorship attribution could be considered as style-based text categorization problem. This paper presents an empirical study of performing style-based poetry categorization with the bag-of-words representation on 406 same theme English poems of five poets from World War I era. We investigated the impact of applying stop-words removal, stemming, and feature selection methods on the categorization performance of Support Vector Machine and Naïve Bayes Classifier. We found that these two models achieve best performance when stop-words removal and stemming are not applied on the training datasets, and the performance of Naïve Bayes Classifier is improved by performing feature selection methods. We also compared the best categorization performance of the bag-of-words representation with that of the stylometric representation including lexical features, such as function words and high frequency words, and found that the bag-of-words representation outperforms the stylometric representation.


Authorship attribution Text categorization Feature selection Stylometric English poetry SVM Naïve Bayes classifier 


  1. 1.
    Ahmed, A., Mohamed, R., Mostafa, B.: Machine learning for authorship attribution in Arabic poetry. Int. J. Future Comput. Commun. 6(2), 42–46 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argamon, S., Levitan, S.: Measuring the usefulness of function words for authorship attribution. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the Association for Computers and the Humanities and the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, pp. 1–3 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    “Ballad”, Victoria and Albert Museum, Online Museum.
  4. 4.
    Bozkurt, I.N., Baglioglu, O., Uyar, E.: Authorship attribution: performance of various features and classification methods. In: 22nd International Symposium on Computer and Information Sciences, Ankara, Turkey, 7–9 November 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forman, G.: Choose your words carefully: An empirical study of feature selection metrics for text classification, pp. 150–162. Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Fussell, P.: The Great War and Modern Memory. Oxford University Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holmes, D.I.: Authorship attribution. Comput. Humanit. 28, 87–106 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holmes, D.I.: The evolution of stylometry in humanities scholarship. Literary Linguist. Comput. 13(3), 111–117 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jamal, N., Mohd, M., Noah, S.: Poetry classification using support vector machines. J. Comput. Sci. 8(9), 1441–1446 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kao, J., Jurafsky, D.: A computational analysis of style, affect, and imagery in contemporary poetry. In: The Proceedings of Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Literature, pp. 8–17 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaplan, D.M., Blei, D.M.: A computational approach to style in American poetry. In: Seventh IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 553–558 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koppel, M., Akiva, N., Dagan, I.: Feature instability as a criterion for selecting potential style markers. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 57(11), 1519–1525 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koppel, M., Schler, J., Bonchek-Dokow, E.: Measuring differentiability: unmasking pseudonymous authors. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 8, 1261–1276 (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kumar, P.J., Reddy, G.S., Reddy, T.R.: Document weighted approach for authorship attribution. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Res. 13(7), 1653–1661 (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lou, A., Inkpen, D., Tanasescu, C.: Multilabel subject-based classification of poetry. In: The Proceedings of 28th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, pp. 187–192 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lovins, J.: Development of a stemming algorithm. Mech. Trans. Comput. Linguist. 11(01), 22–31 (1968)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mitchell, T.: Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill, New York (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mosteller, F., Wallace, D.: Inference and Disputed Authorship: The Federalist. Addison-Wesley (1964)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Osinalde, M., Astigarraga, A., Rodriguez, I., Agirrezabal, M.: Towards basque oral poetry analysis: a machine learning approach. In: The Proceedings of the Student Research Workshop Associated with RANLP, pp. 119–125 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ouamour, S., Sayoud, H.: Authorship attribution of ancient texts written by ten Arabic travelers using character N-grams. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Computer, Information and Telecommunication Systems, pp. 1–5 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pradhan, S., Chhaya, N., Sahai, M.: Mining rhymes: poetry categorization using text mining in Weka (2014). unpublishedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ramezani, R., Sheydaei, N., Kahani, M.: Evaluating the effects of textual features on authorship attribution accuracy. In: The Proceedings of 3th International Conference on Computer and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 108–113 (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rijsbergen, C.V.: Information Retrieval, 2nd edn. Butterworths, London (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roxas, R.M., Tapang, G.: Prose and poetry classification and boundary detection using word adjacency network analysis. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 21(04), 503–512 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    “Sonnet”, Victoria and Albert Museum, Online Museum.
  27. 27.
    Stamatatos, E.: A survey of modern authorship attribution methods. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 60(3), 538–556 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stamatatos, E., Fakotakis, N., Kokkinakis, G.: Computer-based authorship attribution without lexical measures. Comput. Hum. 35(2), 193–214 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stopwords list based on Rainbow.
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Weka 3: Data mining software in Java.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information SciencesFordham UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations