Why AI Detection Fails for Academic Integrity
arXiv:2608.11256v1 Announce Type: cross 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% (Pang
Record details
Published: 13 August 2026
Source: arXiv cs.CY
Category: Research
Topics: Regulation
Retrieved: 13 August 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
Ethics Practices in AI Development: An Empirical Study Across Roles and Regions
arXiv cs.CY · 13 August 2026
Small Data Explainer -- The impact of small data methods in everyday life
arXiv cs.CY · 13 August 2026
Co-constructing sociotechnical AI governance: participatory system mapping using algorithm registers
arXiv cs.CY · 13 August 2026
Silent Updates: Measuring and Closing the Post-Deployment Disclosure Gap
arXiv cs.CY · 13 August 2026
Toward Meaningful Transparency for AI Chatbots: Disclosing Persuasive Intent Reduces Persuasion
arXiv cs.CY · 13 August 2026
Governing Agentic AI in FinTech
arXiv cs.CY · 13 August 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (13 August 2026), “Why AI Detection Fails for Academic Integrity,” evidence record 18724, https://ethics.ai/record/18724 (originally published by arXiv cs.CY).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.