Here's a longer description of the research methodology:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/13/shakespeare...

As much as I would like this to be true, I'm extremely skeptical of any claims to have "proven" something via a method like text analysis. There's just too much room for selection bias (i.e., did they apply their methodology to every play written between 1550 and 1620 to see how many false positives it resulted in? What if the use of function words in the Shakespeare corpus was less distinctive than they imagine?) Though to be fair, I think that language like "proven" is being added by journalists interpreting the study rather than the authors themselves. It's certainly an interesting lead for future research into the provenance of the play, at any rate.