How Well Can Large Language Models Impersonate Individual Authors? A Comparative Evaluation
arXiv:2611.05771v1 Announce Type: new 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 incorporat
Read original source
Source record
Research analysis
Research claim
Paper identifier: 2611.05771. Source account: arXiv:2611.05771v1 Announce Type: new 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 incorporat
Evaluation record
Recent records to compare: “Rewrite, Then Veto: Rewriter-Agnostic Edit Gating for LLM-Based Post-OCR Correction” (arXiv, Nov 5, 2026); “Controlling Action-Head Co-Adaptation to VLM Representation Anisotropy” (arXiv, Nov 4, 2026). Shared themes are navigation hints; they have not been verified as the same need or independent corroboration.
What the result supports
Interpret results only for the reported model version, task, data and inference budget. Community votes, downloads or a benchmark position do not establish reliability in a different workflow.
Validity gaps
Check sample selection, baseline configuration, uncertainty, contamination risk, negative results and access to code or weights. No reproduction by WeWorkBuddy is recorded here.
Verification plan
Read the paper or model card and its evaluation appendix. Reproduce one bounded result against the stated baseline, then test a representative user task and record where the conclusion fails.