Why AI Detection Fails for Academic Integrity

Automated news aggregation. Headlines and summaries are gathered from public feeds; see our editorial standards for sourcing, corrections, and AI-assist disclosure.

arXiv:2608.11256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Institutions use commercial AI detectors for academic integrity, yet detectors cannot distinguish AI editing from full LLM drafts and may treat both as misconduct. In a controlled study of published English abstracts (four domains; 2013 to 2015 vs. 2023 to 2025), we quantify this policy failure under proxy human/AI labels at tau=0.50. Light "refine abstract only" edits, a proxy for guideline-compliant AI assistance, are flagged at 64 to 80% (Pangram/GPTZero). Unmodified 2023 to 2025 originals are flagged at 9 to 15%, with non-STEM rates far above STEM (p96%). Honest AI-editing results in a higher sanction risk than humanizer-assisted evasion. Therefore, detector scores should not serve as standalone misconduct evidence.