skip to main content
research-article

Pairwise Comparative Classification for Translator Stylometric Analysis

Published:27 June 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In this article, we present a new type of classification problem, which we call Comparative Classification Problem (CCP), where we use the term data record to refer to a block of instances. Given a single data record with n instances for n classes, the CCP problem is to map each instance to a unique class. This problem occurs in a wide range of applications where the independent and identically distributed assumption is broken down. The primary difference between CCP and classical classification is that in the latter, the assignment of a translator to one record is independent of the assignment of a translator to a different record. In CCP, however, the assignment of a translator to one record within a block excludes this translator from further assignments to any other record in that block. The interdependency in the data poses challenges for techniques relying on the independent and identically distributed (iid) assumption.

In the Pairwise CCP (PWCCP), a pair of records is grouped together. The key difference between PWCCP and classical binary classification problems is that hidden patterns can only be unmasked by comparing the instances as pairs. In this article, we introduce a new algorithm, PWC4.5, which is based on C4.5, to manage PWCCP. We first show that a simple transformation—that we call Gradient-Based Transformation (GBT)—can fix the problem of iid in C4.5. We then evaluate PWC4.5 using two real-world corpora to distinguish between translators on Arabic-English and French-English translations. While the traditional C4.5 failed to distinguish between different translators, GBT demonstrated better performance. Meanwhile, PWC4.5 consistently provided the best results over C4.5 and GBT.

References

  1. Ahmed Abbasi and Hsinchun Chen. 2005a. Applying authorship analysis to Arabic web content. In Intelligence and Security Informatics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3495. Springer, Berlin, 183--197. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ahmed Abbasi and Hsinchun Chen. 2005b. Applying authorship analysis to extremist-group web forum messages. IEEE Intell. Syst. 20 (September 2005), 67--75. Issue 5. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2005.81 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Ahmed Abbasi and Hsinchun Chen. 2008. Writeprints: A stylometric approach to identity-level identification and similarity detection in cyberspace. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. 26, 2 (2008), 1--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ahmed Abbasi, Hsinchun Chen, Sven Thoms, and Tianjun Fu. 2008. Affect analysis of web forums and blogs using correlation ensembles. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 20, 9 (Sept. 2008), 1168--1180. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2008.51 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. Abbasi, S. France, Zhu Zhang, and Hsinchun Chen. 2011. Selecting attributes for sentiment classification using feature relation networks. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 23, 3 (March 2011), 447--462. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2010.110 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Werner Adler, Alexander Brenning, Sergej Potapov, Matthias Schmid, and Berthold Lausen. 2011a. Ensemble classification of paired data. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 55, 5 (2011), 1933--1941. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2010.11.017 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Werner Adler, Sergej Potapov, and Berthold Lausen. 2011b. Classification of repeated measurements data using tree-based ensemble methods. Comput. Stat. 26 (2011), 355--369. Issue 2. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00180-011-0249-1 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Philipp Sebastian Angermeyer. 2009. Translation style and participant roles in court interpreting. J. Socioling. 13, 1 (2009), 3--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Shlomo Argamon. 2008. Interpreting Burrows’s delta: Geometric and probabilistic foundations. Lit. Ling. Comput. 23, 2 (2008), 131--147. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqn003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Shlomo Argamon and Shlomo Levitan. 2005. Measuring the usefulness of function words for authorship attribution. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACH/ALLC Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Shlomo Argamon, Casey Whitelaw, Paul Chase, Sobhan Raj Hota, Navendu Garg, and Shlomo Levitan. 2007. Stylistic text classification using functional lexical features. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 58, 6 (2007), 802--822. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20553 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Mona Baker. 2000. Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target 12, 2 (2000), 241--266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Jos Nilo G. Binongo. 2003. Who wrote the 15th book of oz? An application of multivariate analysis to authorship attribution. Chance 16, 2 (2003), 9--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Edward Gaylord Bourne. 1897. The authorship of the federalist. Am. Hist. Rev. 2, 3 (1897), 443--460.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. A. Brenning and B. Lausen. 2008. Estimating error rates in the classification of paired organs. Stat. Med. 27, 22 (2008), 4515--4531. cited By (since 1996) 10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. John Burrows. 2002. ‘Delta’: A measure of stylistic difference and a guide to likely authorship. Lit. Ling. Comput. 17, 3 (2002), 267--287. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/llc/17.3.267Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. John F. Burrows. 1987. Word patterns and story shapes: The statistical analysis of narrative style. J. Assoc. Lit. Ling. Comput. 2, 4 (1987), 61--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. J. F. Burrows. 1989. ‘An ocean where each kind…’: Statistical analysis and some major determinants of literary style. Comput. Hum. 23, 4/5 (1989), pp. 309--321.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. J. P. Campbell, W. Shen, W. M. Campbell, R. Schwartz, J.-F. Bonastre, and D. Matrouf. 2009. Forensic speaker recognition. IEEE Sign. Process. Mag. 26, 2 (March 2009), 95--103. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2008.931100Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Sara Castagnoli. 2009. Regularities and Variations in Learner Translations : A Corpus-Based Study of Conjunctive Explicitation. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Bologna, ITALY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson. 2010. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Routledge. 616 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. O. de Vel, A. Anderson, M. Corney, and G. Mohay. 2001. Mining e-mail content for author identification forensics. Sigmod Rec. 30, 4 (2001), 55--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Lenita M. R. Esteves. 2005. Intellectual property and copyright: The case of translators. Transl. J. 9(3) (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Michael Gamon. 2004. Linguistic correlates of style: Authorship classification with deep linguistic analysis features. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING’04). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, Article 611. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/1220355.1220443 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. C. Ganiz, C. George, and W. M. Pottenger. 2011. Higher order Naïve bayes: A novel non-IID approach to text classification. IEEE Knowl. Data Eng. 23, 7 (July 2011), 1022--1034. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2010.160 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Antonio Miranda Garca and Javier Calle Martn. 2007. Function words in authorship attribution studies. Lit. Ling. Comput. 22, 1 (2007), 49--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Jack Grieve. 2007. Quantitative authorship attribution: An evaluation of techniques. Lit. Ling. Comput. 22, 3 (2007), 251--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. S. Hanna. 2006. Translation and questions of identity (review article in Arabic). Diwan Al Arab (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. S. Hanna. 2008. Translation studies: Beginnings, trajectories and questions of the future (in Arabic). Fusul 74 (2008), 36--48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Steffen Hedegaard and Jakob Grue Simonsen. 2011. Lost in translation: Authorship attribution using frame semantics. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Short Papers, Vol. 2. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 65--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. D. I. Holmes and F. J. Tweedie. 1995. Forensic stylometry: A review of the cusum controversy. Revue Informatique et Statistique Dansles Sciences Humaines (1995), 19--47. Liege, Belgium: University of Liege.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. David I. Holmes. 1991. Vocabulary richness and the prophetic voice. Lit. Ling. Comput. 6, 4 (1991), 259--268. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/llc/6.4.259Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. D. I. Holmes and R. S. Forsyth. 1995. The federalist revisited: New directions in authorship attribution. Lit. Ling. Comput. 10, 2 (1995), 111--127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. David I. Holmes, Lesley J. Gordon, and Christine Wilson. 2001. A widow and her soldier: Stylometry and the American civil war. Lit. Ling. Comput. 16, 4 (2001), 403--420. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/llc/16.4.403Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Janet Holmes. 2013. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Fourth Edition. London: Pearson.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. David L. Hoover. 2003a. Frequent collocations and authorial style. Lit. Ling. Comput. 18, 3 (2003), 261--286. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/llc/18.3.261Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. David L. Hoover. 2003b. Multivariate analysis and the study of style variation. Lit. Ling. Comput. 18, 4 (2003), 341--360. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/llc/18.4.341Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. David L. Hoover. 2004a. Delta prime? Lit. Ling. Comput. 19, 4 (2004), 477--495. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/llc/19.4.477Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. David L. Hoover. 2004b. Testing Burrows’s delta. Lit. Ling. Comput. 19, 4 (2004), 453--475.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. David L. Hoover and Shervin Hess. 2009. An exercise in non-ideal authorship attribution: The mysterious Maria ward. Lit. Ling. Comput. 24, 4 (2009), 467--489. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqp027Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Ken Hyland and Brian Paltridge. 2011. Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis. Continuum. 416 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Michael Jessen. 2008. Forensic phonetics. Lang. Ling. Compass 2, 4 (2008), 671--711. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00066.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Matthew L. Jockers and Daniela M. Witten. 2010. A comparative study of machine learning methods for authorship attribution. Lit. Ling. Comput. 25, 2 (2010), 215--223. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqq001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Patrick Juola and Darren Vescovi. 2010. Empirical evaluation of authorship obfuscation using JGAAP. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security (AISec’10). ACM, New York, NY, 14--18. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1866423.1866427 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Renata Kamenická. 2008. Translation Research Projects 1. Intercultural Studies Group, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Chapter Explicitation profile and translator style, 117--130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Moshe Koppel, Shlomo Argamon, and Anat Rachel Shimoni. 2002. Automatically categorizing written texts by author gender. Lit. Ling. Comput. 17, 4 (2002), 401--412. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/llc/17.4.401Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Moshe Koppel and Jonathan Schler. 2004. Authorship verification as a one-class classification problem. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Machine Learning. 62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Schler, and Shlomo Argamon. 2009. Computational methods in authorship attribution. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 60, 1 (2009), 9--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Schler, and Elisheva Bonchek-Dokow. 2007. Measuring differentiability: Unmasking pseudonymous authors. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 8 (December 2007), 1261--1276. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Schler, and Droz Mughaz. 2004. Text categorization for authorship verification. In Eighth International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, http://rutcor.rutgers.edu/ ∼ amai/aimath04/SpecialSessions/Koppel-aimath04.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Moshe Koppel and Yaron Winter. 2014a. Determining if two documents are written by the same author. J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 65, 1 (2014), 178--187.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Moshe Koppel and Yaron Winter. 2014b. Determining if two documents are written by the same author. J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 65, 1 (2014), 178--187. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22954Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Defeng Li, Chunling Zhang, and Kanglong Liu. 2011. Translation style and ideology: A corpus-assisted analysis of two english translations of Hongloumeng. Lit. Ling. Comput. 26, 2 (2011), 153--166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. David Madigan, Alexander Genkin, David D. Lewis, Shlomo Argamon, Dmitriy Fradkin, and Li Ye. 2005. Author identification on the large scale. In Proc. of the Meeting of the Classification Society of North America.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Gerald R. McMenamin. 2002. Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. T. C. Mendenhall. 1887. The characteristic curves of composition. Science ns-9, 214S (1887), 237--246. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.ns-9.214S.237Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Mikhail Mikhailov and Miia Villikka. 2001. Is there such a thing as a translator’s style? In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference, Paul Rayson, Andrew Wilson, Tony McEnery, Andrew Hardie, and Shereen Khoja (Eds.). Lancaster University (UK), Lancaster, 378--386.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. A. Q. Morton. 1965. The authorship of Greek prose. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. A (General) 128, 2 (1965), 169--233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. A. Q. Morton and S. Michaelson. 1990. The Qsum plot. Internal Report CSR-3-90, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh (1990).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. F. Mosteller and D. Wallace. 1964. Inference and Disputed Authorship: The Federalist. Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. John Olsson. 2008. Forensic Linguistics (2nd ed.). Continuum International Publishing Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Daniel Pavelec, Edson Justino, Leonardo V. Batista, and Luiz S. Oliveira. 2008. Author identification using writer-dependent and writer-independent strategies. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’08). ACM, New York, NY, 414--418. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1363686.1363788 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. D. Pavelec, L. S. Oliveira, E. Justino, F. D. Nobre Neto, and L. V. Batista. 2009. Compression and stylometry for author identification. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN’09). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 669--674. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. David F. Dufty, Philip M. McCarthy, Gwyneth A. Lewis, and Danielle S. McNamar. 2006. Analyzing writing styles with coh-metrix. In Proceedings of the Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society International Conference. 764--769.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Anthony Pym. 1996. Venuti’s visibility. TARGETAMSTERDAM 8 (1996), 165--178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Alan Cooperman, Brian J. Grim, Mehtab S. Karim, Sahar Chaudhry, Becky Hsu, Jacqueline E. Wenger, Kimberly McKnight, Megan Pavlischek, and Hilary Ramp. 2009. Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population. Technical Report. The Pew Research Center.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Joseph Rudman. 2005. The non-traditional case for the authorship of the twelve disputed “federalist” articles: A monument built on sand? In Proceedings of ACH/ALLC 2005. Victoria, BC, Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Jan Rybicki. 2012. The great mystery of the (almost) invisible translator: Stylometry in translation. In Quantitative Methods in Corpus-Based Translation Studies: A Practical Guide to Descriptive Translation Research, Michael P. Oakes and Meng Ji (Eds.). John Benjamins Publishing, 231--248.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. E. Stamatatos. 2006. Authorship attribution based on feature set subspacing ensembles. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools 15, 5 (2006), 823--838.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Efstathios Stamatatos. 2008. Author identification: Using text sampling to handle the class imbalance problem. Inform. Process. Manag. 44, 2 (2008), 790--799. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Efstathios Stamatatos. 2009. A survey of modern authorship attribution methods. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 60, 3 (2009), 538--556. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Urszula Stanczyk and Krzysztof A. Cyran. 2008. Application of artificial neural networks to stylometric analysis. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Systems Theory and Scientific Computation. World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS), Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA, 25--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Matt Tearle, Kye Taylor, and Howard Demuth. 2008. An algorithm for automated authorship attribution using neural networks. Lit. Ling. Comput. 23, 4 (2008), 425--442. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqn022Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Nikos Tsimboukakis and George Tambouratzis. 2010. A comparative study on authorship attribution classification tasks using both neural network and statistical methods. Neur. Comput. Appl. 19 (2010), 573--582. Issue 4. 10.1007/s00521-009-0314-7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. F. J. Tweedie, S. Singh, and D. I. Holmes. 1996. Neural network applications in stylometry: The “federalist articles”. Comput. Hum. 30, 1 (1996), pp. 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Hans Van Halteren. 2004. Linguistic profiling for author recognition and verification. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’04). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, Article 199. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/1218955.1218981 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. P. Varela, E. Justino, and L. S. Oliveira. 2011. Selecting syntactic attributes for authorship attribution. In The 2011 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). 167--172. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2011.6033217Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Lawrence Venuti. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. Vol. 2nd. Routledge. 353 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Can Wang, Zhong She, and Longbing Cao. 2013. Coupled attribute analysis on numerical data. In IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, China, August 3--9, 2013, Francesca Rossi (Ed.). IJCAI/AAAI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Qing Wang and Defeng Li. 2012. Looking for translator’s fingerprints: A corpus-based study on Chinese translations of Ulysses. Lit. Ling. Comput. 27, 1 (2012), 81--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. Marion Winters. 2004. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s die schnen und verdammten: A corpus-based study of loan words and code switches as features of translators’ style. Lang. Matters 35, 1 (2004), 248--258. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10228190408566215Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. Marion Winters. 2007. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s die schnen und verdammten: A corpus-based study of speech-act report verbs as a feature of translators’ style. Meta 52, 3 (2007), 412--425.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  83. Marion Winters. 2010. From modal particles to point of view a theoretical framework for the analysis of translator attitude. Transl. Interpret. Stud. 5 (2010), 163--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Xu Xiumei. 2006. Style is the relationship a relevance-theoretic approach to the translator’s style. Babel 52, 4 (2006), 334--348. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1075/babel.52.4.04xiuGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. Ying Zhao and Justin Zobel. 2005. Effective and scalable authorship attribution using function words. In Proceedings of the Second Asia conference on Asia Information Retrieval Technology (AIRS’05). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 174--189. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11562382_14 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  86. Rong Zheng, Jiexun Li, Hsinchun Chen, and Zan Huang. 2006. A framework for authorship identification of online messages: Writing-style features and classification techniques. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 57, 3 (2006), 378--393. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20316 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Pairwise Comparative Classification for Translator Stylometric Analysis

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing
        ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing  Volume 16, Issue 1
        TALLIP Notes and Regular Papers
        March 2017
        133 pages
        ISSN:2375-4699
        EISSN:2375-4702
        DOI:10.1145/2961867
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 27 June 2016
        • Accepted: 1 March 2016
        • Revised: 1 January 2016
        • Received: 1 April 2015
        Published in tallip Volume 16, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!