# Who Writes What: Unveiling the Impact of Author Roles on AI-generated Text Detection

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12611 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12611/

## 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 (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.11692/) (2019)
- [Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02413/) (2016)
- [DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11305/) (2023)
- [The Falcon Series of Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16867/) (2023)
- [Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09203/) (2019)
- [GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.04043/) (2019)
- [How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.07597/) (2023)
- [Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.13408/) (2023)
- [Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05130/) (2023)
- [Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.12070/) (2024)
- [RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03838/) (2023)
- [RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.07940/) (2024)
- [MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13242/) (2023)
- [M4: Multi-generator, Multi-domain, and Multi-lingual Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14902/) (2023)
- [TURINGBENCH: A Benchmark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neural Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.13296/) (2021)
- [MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.14822/) (2023)
- [LLMDet: A Third Party Large Language Models Generated Text Detection Tool](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15004/) (2023)
- [M4GT-Bench: Evaluation Benchmark for Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11175/) (2024)
- [Few-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text using Style Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06712/) (2024)
- [HC3 Plus: A Semantic-Invariant Human ChatGPT Comparison Corpus](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.02731/) (2023)
- [Overview of AuTexTification at IberLEF 2023: Detection and Attribution of Machine-Generated Text in Multiple Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.11285/) (2023)
- [Findings of the The RuATD Shared Task 2022 on Artificial Text Detection in Russian](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.01583/) (2022)
- [Evaluating AIGC Detectors on Code Content](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05193/) (2023)
- [On the Generalization of Training-based ChatGPT Detection Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01307/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [On the Detectability of LLM-Generated Text: What Exactly Is LLM-Generated Text?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.20810/) (2025)
- [M-DAIGT: A Shared Task on Multi-Domain Detection of AI-Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.11340/) (2025)
- [AEyeDE: An Attention-Based Attribution Framework for AI-Generated Text Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.00016/) (2026)

## 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.