mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Different Time, Different Language: Revisiting the Bias Against Non-Native Speakers in GPT Detectors

arXiv 2602.05769 ↗First posted 5 Feb 2026cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

LLM-based assistants have been widely popularised after the release of ChatGPT. Concerns have been raised about their misuse in academia, given the difficulty of distinguishing between human-written and generated text. To combat this, automated techniques have been developed and shown to be effective, to some extent. However, prior work suggests that these methods often falsely flag essays from non-native speakers as generated, due to their low perplexity extracted from an LLM, which is supposedly a key feature of the detectors. We revisit these statements two years later, specifically in the Czech language setting. We show that the perplexity of texts from non-native speakers of Czech is not lower than that of native speakers. We further examine detectors from three separate families and find no systematic bias against non-native speakers. Finally, we demonstrate that contemporary detectors operate effectively without relying on perplexity.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Feb 2026.

Builds on

19 of 38 references.

References · 19

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  3. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
  4. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  5. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  6. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
  7. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
  8. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
  9. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 260
  10. 2023DetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 207
  11. 2023GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writerscited by 175
  12. 2020TweepFake: about Detecting Deepfake Tweetscited by 117
7 more
  1. 2023GPT-Sentinel: Distinguishing Human and ChatGPT Generated Contentcited by 40
  2. 2021RobeCzech: Czech RoBERTa, a monolingual contextualized language representation modelcited by 33
  3. 2023HowkGPT: Investigating the Detection of ChatGPT-generated University Student Homework through Context-Aware Perplexity Analysiscited by 30
  4. 2019Grammatical Error Correction in Low-Resource Scenarioscited by 28
  5. 2023Towards a Robust Detection of Language Model Generated Text: Is ChatGPT that Easy to Detect?cited by 23
  6. 2025Detecting AI-Generated Text in Educational Content: Leveraging Machine Learning and Explainable AI for Academic Integritycited by 3
  7. 2025Humans can learn to detect AI-generated texts, or at least learn when they can'tcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.