Who Writes What: Unveiling the Impact of Author Roles on AI-generated Text Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates accurate AI-generated text detection. However, current approaches largely overlook the influence of author characteristics. We investigate how sociolinguistic attributes-gender, CEFR proficiency, academic field, and language environment-impact state-of-the-art AI text detectors. Using the ICNALE corpus of human-authored texts and parallel AI-generated texts from diverse LLMs, we conduct a rigorous evaluation employing multi-factor ANOVA and weighted least squares (WLS). Our results reveal significant biases: CEFR proficiency and language environment consistently affected detector accuracy, while gender and academic field showed detector-dependent effects. These findings highlight the crucial need for socially aware AI text detection to avoid unfairly penalizing specific demographic groups. We offer novel empirical evidence, a robust statistical framework, and actionable insights for developing more equitable and reliable detection systems in real-world, out-of-domain contexts. This work paves the way for future research on bias mitigation, inclusive evaluation benchmarks, and socially responsible LLM detectors.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Feb 2025.
Builds on
25 of 56 references.
References · 25
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
- 2023The Falcon Series of Open Language Modelscited by 535
- 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 513
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 496
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 481
- 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 429
- 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 287
- 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 263
- 2023RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learningcited by 190
13 more
- 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 163
- 2023MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wildcited by 132
- 2023M4: Multi-generator, Multi-domain, and Multi-lingual Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 121
- 2021TURINGBENCH: A Benchmark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neural Text Generationcited by 120
- 2023MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 93
- 2023LLMDet: A Third Party Large Language Models Generated Text Detection Toolcited by 45
- 2024M4GT-Bench: Evaluation Benchmark for Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 43
- 2024Few-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text using Style Representationscited by 40
- 2023HC3 Plus: A Semantic-Invariant Human ChatGPT Comparison Corpuscited by 35
- 2023Overview of AuTexTification at IberLEF 2023: Detection and Attribution of Machine-Generated Text in Multiple Domainscited by 31
- 2022Findings of the The RuATD Shared Task 2022 on Artificial Text Detection in Russiancited by 29
- 2023Evaluating AIGC Detectors on Code Contentcited by 12
- 2023On the Generalization of Training-based ChatGPT Detection Methodscited by 11
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
3 papers.