Rebecca M. M. Hicke

CL
h-index1
3papers
116citations
Novelty43%
AI Score26

3 Papers

1.7CLOct 27, 2023
T5 meets Tybalt: Author Attribution in Early Modern English Drama Using Large Language Models

Rebecca M. M. Hicke, David Mimno

Large language models have shown breakthrough potential in many NLP domains. Here we consider their use for stylometry, specifically authorship identification in Early Modern English drama. We find both promising and concerning results; LLMs are able to accurately predict the author of surprisingly short passages but are also prone to confidently misattribute texts to specific authors. A fine-tuned t5-large model outperforms all tested baselines, including logistic regression, SVM with a linear kernel, and cosine delta, at attributing small passages. However, we see indications that the presence of certain authors in the model's pre-training data affects predictive results in ways that are difficult to assess.

26.7CLJan 31, 2024
[Lions: 1] and [Tigers: 2] and [Bears: 3], Oh My! Literary Coreference Annotation with LLMs

Rebecca M. M. Hicke, David Mimno

Coreference annotation and resolution is a vital component of computational literary studies. However, it has previously been difficult to build high quality systems for fiction. Coreference requires complicated structured outputs, and literary text involves subtle inferences and highly varied language. New language-model-based seq2seq systems present the opportunity to solve both these problems by learning to directly generate a copy of an input sentence with markdown-like annotations. We create, evaluate, and release several trained models for coreference, as well as a workflow for training new models.

4.9CLFeb 5, 2025
Looking for the Inner Music: Probing LLMs' Understanding of Literary Style

Rebecca M. M. Hicke, David Mimno

Recent work has demonstrated that language models can be trained to identify the author of much shorter literary passages than has been thought feasible for traditional stylometry. We replicate these results for authorship and extend them to a new dataset measuring novel genre. We find that LLMs are able to distinguish authorship and genre, but they do so in different ways. Some models seem to rely more on memorization, while others benefit more from training to learn author/genre characteristics. We then use three methods to probe one high-performing LLM for features that define style. These include direct syntactic ablations to input text as well as two methods that look at model internals. We find that authorial style is easier to define than genre-level style and is more impacted by minor syntactic decisions and contextual word usage. However, some traits like pronoun usage and word order prove significant for defining both kinds of literary style.