AI evaluation may bias perceptions: The importance of context in interpreting academic writing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.26662v1
• Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 07:47:58 GMT
• Title: AI evaluation may bias perceptions: The importance of context in interpreting academic writing
• Abstract summary: This paper examines how estimates of AI use in scientific writing can be biased when evaluation methods ignore contextual differences across countries and fields.<n>A pooled benchmark may confound pre-existing stylistic variation with AI-generated text, producing substantial distortions across country-field groups even in pre-LLM publications.<n>Applying these methods to publications in 2025 reveals that the pooled benchmark systematically overestimates AI use in certain countries and fields while underestimating it in others.
• Score: 2.5412649391082502
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper examines how estimates of AI use in scientific writing can be biased when evaluation methods ignore contextual differences across countries and fields. Using large-scale data on journal publications from Dimensions, we construct AI-likeness benchmarks based on differences between human-written and LLM-rephrased abstracts. We show that a pooled benchmark may confound pre-existing stylistic variation with AI-generated text, producing substantial distortions across country-field groups even in pre-LLM publications. In contrast, country-field-specific benchmarks attenuate such distortions and provide a more credible baseline for comparison. Applying these methods to publications in 2025 reveals that the pooled benchmark systematically overestimates AI use in certain countries and fields while underestimating it in others. These findings highlight the importance of context-aware measurement for accurate and equitable evaluation of AI use in science.

Related papers

• 'Your AI Text is not Mine': Redefining and Evaluating AI-generated Text Detection under Realistic Assumptions [50.1119556361129]
  We systematically define various notions of AI-generated text and their characteristics.<n>AITDNA is a new benchmark of human-machine co-constructed texts.<n>We benchmark various machine-generated text detectors and find that they often only perform well for specific notions but not as broad detectors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T14:05:14Z)
• Show, Don't TELL: Explainable AI-Generated Text Detection [0.42970700836450487]
  We develop a novel architecture, TELL, that bakes explainability from the ground-up.<n>We train TELL on a custom SFT dataset of domain-specific authorship annotations.<n>We report a high (mean 72.3%) win-rate on annotation concreteness, falsifiability, coherence, plausibility and grounding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T03:47:25Z)
• Beyond Rating: A Comprehensive Evaluation and Benchmark for AI Reviews [69.66583722746904]
  We introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions.<n>We propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews.<n>Our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T14:21:15Z)
• BAID: A Benchmark for Bias Assessment of AI Detectors [9.156813547624923]
  We propose BAID, a comprehensive evaluation framework for AI detectors across various types of biases.<n>We introduce over 200k samples spanning 7 major categories: demographics, age, educational grade level, dialect, formality, political leaning, and topic.<n>We find consistent disparities in detection performance, particularly low recall rates for texts from underrepresented groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-12T12:01:42Z)
• CoCoNUTS: Concentrating on Content while Neglecting Uninformative Textual Styles for AI-Generated Peer Review Detection [60.52240468810558]
  We introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews.<n>We also develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T06:03:11Z)
• Who Writes What: Unveiling the Impact of Author Roles on AI-generated Text Detection [44.05134959039957]
  We investigate how sociolinguistic attributes-gender, CEFR proficiency, academic field, and language environment-impact state-of-the-art AI text detectors.<n>Our results reveal significant biases: CEFR proficiency and language environment consistently affected detector accuracy, while gender and academic field showed detector-dependent effects.<n>These findings highlight the crucial need for socially aware AI text detection to avoid unfairly penalizing specific demographic groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T07:49:31Z)
• Exploring the Correlation between Human and Machine Evaluation of Simultaneous Speech Translation [0.9576327614980397]
  This study aims to assess the reliability of automatic metrics in evaluating simultaneous interpretations by analyzing their correlation with human evaluations. As a benchmark we use human assessments performed by language experts, and evaluate how well sentence embeddings and Large Language Models correlate with them. The results suggest GPT models, particularly GPT-3.5 with direct prompting, demonstrate the strongest correlation with human judgment in terms of semantic similarity between source and target texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T14:47:19Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [51.26815896167173]
  We present a comprehensive tertiary analysis of PAMI reviews along three complementary dimensions.<n>Our analyses reveal distinctive organizational patterns as well as persistent gaps in current review practices.<n>Finally, our evaluation of state-of-the-art AI-generated reviews indicates encouraging advances in coherence and organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• Bias in Language Models: Beyond Trick Tests and Toward RUTEd Evaluation [49.3814117521631]
  Standard benchmarks of bias and fairness in large language models (LLMs) measure the association between the user attributes stated or implied by a prompt.<n>We develop analogous RUTEd evaluations from three contexts of real-world use: children's bedtime stories, user personas, and English language learning exercises.<n>We find that standard bias metrics have no significant correlation with the more realistic bias metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T01:49:15Z)
• Quantifying the Plausibility of Context Reliance in Neural Machine Translation [25.29330352252055]
  We introduce Plausibility Evaluation of Context Reliance (PECoRe) PECoRe is an end-to-end interpretability framework designed to quantify context usage in language models' generations. We use pecore to quantify the plausibility of context-aware machine translation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T13:26:43Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• Social Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for NLG [53.76118154594404]
  We propose an evaluation method based on Word Embeddings Association Test (WEAT) and Sentence Embeddings Association Test (SEAT) to quantify social biases in evaluation metrics. We construct gender-swapped meta-evaluation datasets to explore the potential impact of gender bias in image caption and text summarization tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T08:55:26Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.