@inproceedings{stowe-etal-2026-identifying,
title = "Identifying Bias in Machine-generated Text Detection",
author = "Stowe, Kevin and
Afanaseva, Svetlana and
Raimundo, Rodolfo C. and
Sun, Yitao and
Patil, Kailash",
editor = "Liakata, Maria and
Moreira, Viviane P. and
Zhang, Jiajun and
Jurgens, David",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the {A}ssociation for {C}omputational {L}inguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)",
month = jul,
year = "2026",
address = "San Diego, California, United States",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.acl-long.109/",
pages = "2383--2395",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-390-6",
abstract = "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."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="stowe-etal-2026-identifying">
<titleInfo>
<title>Identifying Bias in Machine-generated Text Detection</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kevin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Stowe</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Svetlana</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Afanaseva</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Rodolfo</namePart>
<namePart type="given">C</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Raimundo</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yitao</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Sun</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kailash</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Patil</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2026-07</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Maria</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Liakata</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Viviane</namePart>
<namePart type="given">P</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Moreira</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jiajun</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Zhang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">David</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Jurgens</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">San Diego, California, United States</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
<identifier type="isbn">979-8-89176-390-6</identifier>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>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.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">stowe-etal-2026-identifying</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.acl-long.109/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2026-07</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>2383</start>
<end>2395</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Identifying Bias in Machine-generated Text Detection
%A Stowe, Kevin
%A Afanaseva, Svetlana
%A Raimundo, Rodolfo C.
%A Sun, Yitao
%A Patil, Kailash
%Y Liakata, Maria
%Y Moreira, Viviane P.
%Y Zhang, Jiajun
%Y Jurgens, David
%S Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
%D 2026
%8 July
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C San Diego, California, United States
%@ 979-8-89176-390-6
%F stowe-etal-2026-identifying
%X 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.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.acl-long.109/
%P 2383-2395
Markdown (Informal)
[Identifying Bias in Machine-generated Text Detection](https://aclanthology.org/2026.acl-long.109/) (Stowe et al., ACL 2026)
ACL
- Kevin Stowe, Svetlana Afanaseva, Rodolfo C. Raimundo, Yitao Sun, and Kailash Patil. 2026. Identifying Bias in Machine-generated Text Detection. In Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2383–2395, San Diego, California, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.