Style as a Confound: False Positives in AI Detection of Non-Native Academic Writing

arXiv:2608.26710v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI text detectors are increasingly employed in academic settings, but it remains unclear whether their outputs reflect AI authorship itself or broader linguistic features associated with polished academic English. Previous studies have reported high false-positive rates (FPRs) for non-native English writing, but population-level comparisons confound authorship with differences in topic, domain, and writing style. Professional editing provides a useful setting for examining this issue because it changes the linguistic form of manuscripts while preserving authorship and content. We examined 135,389 document pairs from a professional English editing service (2018-2025), comprising non-native manuscripts and their native-edited versions, to assess how editing affects detector responses controlling for content and authorship. For the 13 AI text detectors, FPRs for human-written texts varied widely, from 0.0% to 100.0%. Responses varied across detectors: the same edits increased AI scores in some detectors but decreased them in others. Notably, score changes correlated with the extent of editing. The findings identify professional editing style as a key confounding variable in AI detector outputs, rather than establishing a full separation of text origin from linguistic style, raising concerns about fairness and reliability in academic settings.

Abstract:AI text detectors are increasingly employed in academic settings, but it remains unclear whether their outputs reflect AI authorship itself or broader linguistic features associated with polished academic English. Previous studies have reported high false-positive rates (FPRs) for non-native English writing, but population-level comparisons confound authorship with differences in topic, domain, and writing style. Professional editing provides a useful setting for examining this issue because it changes the linguistic form of manuscripts while preserving authorship and content. We examined 135,389 document pairs from a professional English editing service (2018-2025), comprising non-native manuscripts and their native-edited versions, to assess how editing affects detector responses controlling for content and authorship. For the 13 AI text detectors, FPRs for human-written texts varied widely, from 0.0% to 100.0%. Responses varied across detectors: the same edits increased AI scores in some detectors but decreased them in others. Notably, score changes correlated with the extent of editing. The findings identify professional editing style as a key confounding variable in AI detector outputs, rather than establishing a full separation of text origin from linguistic style, raising concerns about fairness and reliability in academic settings.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2608.26710 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2608.26710v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.26710 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Style as a Confound: False Positives in AI Detection of Non-Native Academic Writing

Related coverage