# Identifying Bias in Machine-generated Text Detection

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09292 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.09292/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 24 of its 45 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 10 Dec 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14050/) (2020)
- [All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.00061/) (2021)
- [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)
- [OPT-IML: Scaling Language Model Instruction Meta Learning through the Lens of Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.12017/) (2022)
- [RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03838/) (2023)
- [GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.02819/) (2023)
- [RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.07940/) (2024)
- [Harms of Gender Exclusivity and Challenges in Non-Binary Representation in Language Technologies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.12084/) (2021)
- [On the Risk of Misinformation Pollution with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13661/) (2023)
- [Towards a Critical Race Methodology in Algorithmic Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.03593/) (2019)
- [Gender Bias in Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.06001/) (2021)
- [A Survey on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.14168/) (2021)
- [Quantifying Social Biases in NLP: A Generalization and Empirical Comparison of Extrinsic Fairness Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.14574/) (2021)
- [OUTFOX: LLM-Generated Essay Detection Through In-Context Learning with Adversarially Generated Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.11729/) (2023)
- [A Survey of Race, Racism, and Anti-Racism in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.11410/) (2021)
- [Real or Fake Text?: Investigating Human Ability to Detect Boundaries Between Human-Written and Machine-Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.12672/) (2022)
- [DeTeCtive: Detecting AI-generated Text via Multi-Level Contrastive Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.20964/) (2024)
- [Angry Men, Sad Women: Large Language Models Reflect Gendered Stereotypes in Emotion Attribution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.03121/) (2024)
- [Machine-Made Media: Monitoring the Mobilization of Machine-Generated Articles on Misinformation and Mainstream News Websites](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.09820/) (2023)
- [The Authenticity Gap in Human Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11930/) (2022)
- [Thinking Racial Bias in Fair Forgery Detection: Models, Datasets and Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.14367/) (2024)
- [Sports and Women's Sports: Gender Bias in Text Generation with Olympic Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.04218/) (2025)
- [Collaborative Evaluation of Deepfake Text with Deliberation-Enhancing Dialogue Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04945/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The meteoric rise in text generation capability has been accompanied by parallel growth in interest in machine-generated text detection: the capability to identify whether a given text was generated using a model or written by a person. While detection models show strong performance, they have the capacity to cause significant negative impacts. We explore potential biases in English machine-generated text detection systems. We curate a dataset of student essays and assess 16 different detection systems for bias across four attributes: gender, race/ethnicity, English-language learner (ELL) status, and economic status. We evaluate these attributes using regression-based models to determine the significance and power of the effects, as well as performing subgroup analysis. We find that while biases are generally inconsistent across systems, there are several key issues: several models tend to classify disadvantaged groups as machine-generated, ELL essays are more likely to be classified as machine-generated, economically disadvantaged students' essays are less likely to be classified as machine-generated, and non-White ELL essays are disproportionately classified as machine-generated relative to their White counterparts. Finally, we perform human annotation and find that while humans perform generally poorly at the detection task, they show no significant biases on the studied attributes.