aiqbench analysis
This study evaluates the authorship impersonation capabilities of six leading large language models using short product reviews, revealing that while Gemini 3 Pro showed strong apparent mimicry, it relied heavily on direct textual reuse rather than genuine stylistic convergence. The findings underscore a critical distinction between successful forensic imitation and simple copying, suggesting that training set consistency is a more robust predictor of mimicry success than inherent author distinctiveness. These results have significant implications for the forensic analysis of digital evidence involving potential AI-enabled impersonation.
How Well Can Large Language Models Impersonate Individual Authors? A Comparative Evaluation
arXiv:2611.05771v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This study investigates the authorship impersonation capacity of six widely used large language models (LLMs): Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Opus, GPT 5.2, GPT 5.2 Pro, DeepSeek 3.2, and Grok 4.1 Fast. The evaluation was conducted using short product review texts selected to ensure high within author consistency in individual writing style. Two types of in context prompt were designed: a simple prompt with minimal instruction and a complex prompt incorporating explicit stylometric guidance for mimicry. Authorship mimicry was evaluated using a cosine distance based distance to training metric, supplemented by visual analyses of embedding distributions. The results indicate that authorship impersonation remained challenging for most LLMs, with Gemini 3 Pro showing the strongest apparent mimicry performance. However, subsequent overlap analysis revealed that Gemini 3 Pro extensively copied and reused sentences and phrases from the training texts, at levels far exceeding those observed among human authors. Follow up factor analyses showed that training set consistency was the most robust predictor of mimicry success across models, whereas author distinctiveness did not generalise as a reliable predictor. Global embedding visualisations further revealed a consistent macro level pattern: for most models, generated texts occupied regions of the embedding space that were largely separated from the corresponding human training clusters. This indicates limited convergence towards target author style and suggests the presence of model specific lexical and phraseological preferences. The findings highlight the importance of distinguishing genuine stylistic imitation from direct textual reuse and have implications for the forensic analysis of textual evidence involving potential LLM enabled impersonation.
Title:How Well Can Large Language Models Impersonate Individual Authors? A Comparative Evaluation
Abstract:This study investigates the authorship impersonation capacity of six widely used large language models (LLMs): Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Opus, GPT 5.2, GPT 5.2 Pro, DeepSeek 3.2, and Grok 4.1 Fast. The evaluation was conducted using short product review texts selected to ensure high within author consistency in individual writing style. Two types of in context prompt were designed: a simple prompt with minimal instruction and a complex prompt incorporating explicit stylometric guidance for mimicry. Authorship mimicry was evaluated using a cosine distance based distance to training metric, supplemented by visual analyses of embedding distributions. The results indicate that authorship impersonation remained challenging for most LLMs, with Gemini 3 Pro showing the strongest apparent mimicry performance. However, subsequent overlap analysis revealed that Gemini 3 Pro extensively copied and reused sentences and phrases from the training texts, at levels far exceeding those observed among human authors. Follow up factor analyses showed that training set consistency was the most robust predictor of mimicry success across models, whereas author distinctiveness did not generalise as a reliable predictor. Global embedding visualisations further revealed a consistent macro level pattern: for most models, generated texts occupied regions of the embedding space that were largely separated from the corresponding human training clusters. This indicates limited convergence towards target author style and suggests the presence of model specific lexical and phraseological preferences. The findings highlight the importance of distinguishing genuine stylistic imitation from direct textual reuse and have implications for the forensic analysis of textual evidence involving potential LLM enabled impersonation.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2611.05771 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2611.05771v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.05771 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 363 words
Related coverage

Implement on-behalf-of token exchange for multi-tenant agents with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Gateway
AWS · Jul 13, 2026

Building Pakistan Notice Helper: A Small AI Tool for a Very Local Safety Problem
Hugging Face · Jun 8, 2026

Google will let you upload a video selfie to recover your account - but should you?
ZDNet · Jul 23, 2026

Hackers Impersonate ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity AI Bots to Hunt for Passwords and API Keys
Cybersecurity News · Nov 2, 2026