# BAID: A Benchmark for Bias Assessment of AI Detectors

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.11505 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.11505/

## 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 (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09543/) (2021)
- [DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11305/) (2023)
- [Defending Against Neural Fake News](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.12616/) (2019)
- [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)
- [Multilingual E5 Text Embeddings: A Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05672/) (2024)
- [Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05130/) (2023)
- [Demographic Dialectal Variation in Social Media: A Case Study of African-American English](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.08868/) (2016)
- [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)
- [We Can Detect Your Bias: Predicting the Political Ideology of News Articles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.05338/) (2020)
- [Investigating African-American Vernacular English in Transformer-Based Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.02510/) (2020)
- [Detecting AI-Generated Sentences in Human-AI Collaborative Hybrid Texts: Challenges, Strategies, and Insights](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.03506/) (2024)
- [Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Benchmarking AI Text Detection in Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.19614/) (2025)
- [Blessing or curse? A survey on the Impact of Generative AI on Fake News](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.03021/) (2024)
- [Towards Reliable Detection of LLM-Generated Texts: A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework with CUDRT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.09056/) (2024)
- [Fine-Grained Detection of AI-Generated Text Using Sentence-Level Segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.17830/) (2025)
- [Nationality, Race, and Ethnicity Biases in and Consequences of Detecting AI-Generated Self-Presentations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.18647/) (2024)
- [Phishing Detection in the Gen-AI Era: Quantized LLMs vs Classical Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.07406/) (2025)

## 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.