BAID: A Benchmark for Bias Assessment of AI Detectors
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
AI-generated text detectors have recently gained adoption in educational and professional contexts. Prior research has uncovered isolated cases of bias, particularly against English Language Learners (ELLs) however, there is a lack of systematic evaluation of such systems across broader sociolinguistic factors. In this work, we propose BAID, a comprehensive evaluation framework for AI detectors across various types of biases. As a part of the framework, we introduce over 200k samples spanning 7 major categories: demographics, age, educational grade level, dialect, formality, political leaning, and topic. We also generated synthetic versions of each sample with carefully crafted prompts to preserve the original content while reflecting subgroup-specific writing styles. Using this, we evaluate four open-source state-of-the-art AI text detectors and find consistent disparities in detection performance, particularly low recall rates for texts from underrepresented groups. Our contributions provide a scalable, transparent approach for auditing AI detectors and emphasize the need for bias-aware evaluation before these tools are deployed for public use.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Dec 2025.
Builds on
23 of 47 references.
References · 23
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
- 2021DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharingcited by 1,254
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
- 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 559
- 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 513
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 496
- 2024Multilingual E5 Text Embeddings: A Technical Reportcited by 372
- 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 287
- 2016Demographic Dialectal Variation in Social Media: A Case Study of African-American Englishcited by 196
- 2023RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learningcited by 190
11 more
- 2023GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writerscited by 178
- 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 163
- 2020We Can Detect Your Bias: Predicting the Political Ideology of News Articlescited by 92
- 2020Investigating African-American Vernacular English in Transformer-Based Text Generationcited by 53
- 2024Detecting AI-Generated Sentences in Human-AI Collaborative Hybrid Texts: Challenges, Strategies, and Insightscited by 21
- 2025Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Benchmarking AI Text Detection in Peer Reviewcited by 21
- 2024Blessing or curse? A survey on the Impact of Generative AI on Fake Newscited by 12
- 2024Towards Reliable Detection of LLM-Generated Texts: A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework with CUDRTcited by 3
- 2025Fine-Grained Detection of AI-Generated Text Using Sentence-Level Segmentationcited by 3
- 2024Nationality, Race, and Ethnicity Biases in and Consequences of Detecting AI-Generated Self-Presentationscited by 1
- 2025Phishing Detection in the Gen-AI Era: Quantized LLMs vs Classical Modelscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.