Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Benchmarking AI Text Detection in Peer Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19614v2
• Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 17:37:43 GMT
• Title: Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Benchmarking AI Text Detection in Peer Review
• Authors: Sungduk Yu, Man Luo, Avinash Madusu, Vasudev Lal, Phillip Howard,
• Abstract summary: A new risk to the peer review process is that negligent reviewers will rely on large language models (LLMs) to review a paper.<n>We introduce a comprehensive dataset containing a total of 788,984 AI-written peer reviews paired with corresponding human reviews.<n>We use this new resource to evaluate the ability of 18 existing AI text detection algorithms to distinguish between peer reviews fully written by humans and different state-of-the-art LLMs.
• Score: 6.20631177269082
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Peer review is a critical process for ensuring the integrity of published scientific research. Confidence in this process is predicated on the assumption that experts in the relevant domain give careful consideration to the merits of manuscripts which are submitted for publication. With the recent rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs), a new risk to the peer review process is that negligent reviewers will rely on LLMs to perform the often time consuming process of reviewing a paper. However, there is a lack of existing resources for benchmarking the detectability of AI text in the domain of peer review. To address this deficiency, we introduce a comprehensive dataset containing a total of 788,984 AI-written peer reviews paired with corresponding human reviews, covering 8 years of papers submitted to each of two leading AI research conferences (ICLR and NeurIPS). We use this new resource to evaluate the ability of 18 existing AI text detection algorithms to distinguish between peer reviews fully written by humans and different state-of-the-art LLMs. Additionally, we explore a context-aware detection method called Anchor, which leverages manuscript content to detect AI-generated reviews, and analyze the sensitivity of detection models to LLM-assisted editing of human-written text. Our work reveals the difficulty of identifying AI-generated text at the individual peer review level, highlighting the urgent need for new tools and methods to detect this unethical use of generative AI. Our dataset is publicly available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/IntelLabs/AI-Peer-Review-Detection-Benchmark.

Related papers

• Hidden Prompts in Manuscripts Exploit AI-Assisted Peer Review [0.0]
  18 academic manuscripts on the preprint website arXiv were found to contain hidden instructions designed to manipulate AI-assisted peer review.<n>Author responses varied: one planned to withdraw the affected paper, while another defended the practice as legitimate testing of reviewer compliance.<n>We examine the technique of prompt injection in large language models (LLMs), revealing four types of hidden prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-08T17:11:13Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• HACo-Det: A Study Towards Fine-Grained Machine-Generated Text Detection under Human-AI Coauthoring [14.887491317701997]
  This paper explores the possibility of fine-grained MGT detection under human-AI coauthoring.<n>We suggest fine-grained detectors can pave pathways toward coauthored text detection with a numeric AI ratio.<n> Empirical results show that metric-based methods struggle to conduct fine-grained detection with a 0.462 average F1 score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:52:44Z)
• Almost AI, Almost Human: The Challenge of Detecting AI-Polished Writing [55.2480439325792]
  Misclassification can lead to false plagiarism accusations and misleading claims about AI prevalence in online content. We systematically evaluate eleven state-of-the-art AI-text detectors using our AI-Polished-Text Evaluation dataset. Our findings reveal that detectors frequently misclassify even minimally polished text as AI-generated, struggle to differentiate between degrees of AI involvement, and exhibit biases against older and smaller models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T18:45:37Z)
• 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)
• ReviewEval: An Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Reviews [9.35023998408983]
  This research introduces a comprehensive evaluation framework for AI-generated reviews.<n>It measures alignment with human evaluations, verifies factual accuracy, assesses analytical depth, and identifies actionable insights.<n>Our framework establishes standardized metrics for evaluating AI-based review systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T12:22:11Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Investigating AI Text Detectability in Peer Review [8.606381080620789]
  We investigate the ability of existing AI text detection algorithms to distinguish between peer reviews written by humans and different state-of-the-art LLMs.<n>Our analysis shows that existing approaches fail to identify many GPT-4o written reviews without also producing a high number of false positive classifications.<n>We propose a new detection approach which surpasses existing methods in the identification of GPT-4o written peer reviews at low levels of false positive classifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T22:05:06Z)
• ESPERANTO: Evaluating Synthesized Phrases to Enhance Robustness in AI Detection for Text Origination [1.8418334324753884]
  This paper introduces back-translation as a novel technique for evading detection. We present a model that combines these back-translated texts to produce a manipulated version of the original AI-generated text. We evaluate this technique on nine AI detectors, including six open-source and three proprietary systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T01:13:22Z)
• RelevAI-Reviewer: A Benchmark on AI Reviewers for Survey Paper Relevance [0.8089605035945486]
  We propose RelevAI-Reviewer, an automatic system that conceptualizes the task of survey paper review as a classification problem. We introduce a novel dataset comprised of 25,164 instances. Each instance contains one prompt and four candidate papers, each varying in relevance to the prompt. We develop a machine learning (ML) model capable of determining the relevance of each paper and identifying the most pertinent one.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T06:42:32Z)
• What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review? [173.8912784451817]
  In modern science, peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error. Since the artifacts involved in peer review are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing. We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T16:06:43Z)
• Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews [51.453135368388686]
  We present an approach for estimating the fraction of text in a large corpus which is likely to be substantially modified or produced by a large language model (LLM) Our maximum likelihood model leverages expert-written and AI-generated reference texts to accurately and efficiently examine real-world LLM-use at the corpus level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T21:51:39Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [55.33653554387953]
  Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI) has led to numerous literature reviews aimed at collecting and fragmented information.<n>This paper presents a thorough analysis of these literature reviews within the PAMI field.<n>We try to address three core research questions: (1) What are the prevalent structural and statistical characteristics of PAMI literature reviews; (2) What strategies can researchers employ to efficiently navigate the growing corpus of reviews; and (3) What are the advantages and limitations of AI-generated reviews compared to human-authored ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• Towards Possibilities & Impossibilities of AI-generated Text Detection: A Survey [97.33926242130732]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized the domain of natural language processing (NLP) with remarkable capabilities of generating human-like text responses. Despite these advancements, several works in the existing literature have raised serious concerns about the potential misuse of LLMs. To address these concerns, a consensus among the research community is to develop algorithmic solutions to detect AI-generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T18:11:32Z)
• Counter Turing Test CT^2: AI-Generated Text Detection is Not as Easy as You May Think -- Introducing AI Detectability Index [9.348082057533325]
  AI-generated text detection (AGTD) has emerged as a topic that has already received immediate attention in research. This paper introduces the Counter Turing Test (CT2), a benchmark consisting of techniques aiming to offer a comprehensive evaluation of the fragility of existing AGTD techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-08T06:20:36Z)
• A Gold Standard Dataset for the Reviewer Assignment Problem [117.59690218507565]
  "Similarity score" is a numerical estimate of the expertise of a reviewer in reviewing a paper. Our dataset consists of 477 self-reported expertise scores provided by 58 researchers. For the task of ordering two papers in terms of their relevance for a reviewer, the error rates range from 12%-30% in easy cases to 36%-43% in hard cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-23T16:15:03Z)
• Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? [50.95804851595018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) perform impressively well in various applications.<n>The potential for misuse of these models in activities such as plagiarism, generating fake news, and spamming has raised concern about their responsible use.<n>We stress-test the robustness of these AI text detectors in the presence of an attacker.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-17T17:53:19Z)
• The Role of AI in Drug Discovery: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies [97.5153823429076]
  The benefits, challenges and drawbacks of AI in this field are reviewed. The use of data augmentation, explainable AI, and the integration of AI with traditional experimental methods are also discussed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-08T23:23:39Z)

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.