Detecting LLM-Written Peer Reviews

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15772v1
• Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 01:11:35 GMT
• Title: Detecting LLM-Written Peer Reviews
• Authors: Vishisht Rao, Aounon Kumar, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Nihar B. Shah,
• Abstract summary: There is growing concern about the rise of lazy reviewing practices, where reviewers use large language models (LLMs) to generate reviews instead of writing them independently.<n>Existing tools for detecting LLM-generated content are not designed to differentiate between fully LLM-generated reviews and those merely polished by an LLM.<n>In this work, we employ a straightforward approach to identify LLM-generated reviews - doing an indirect prompt injection via the paper PDF to ask the LLM to embed a watermark.
• Score: 37.51215252353345
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Editors of academic journals and program chairs of conferences require peer reviewers to write their own reviews. However, there is growing concern about the rise of lazy reviewing practices, where reviewers use large language models (LLMs) to generate reviews instead of writing them independently. Existing tools for detecting LLM-generated content are not designed to differentiate between fully LLM-generated reviews and those merely polished by an LLM. In this work, we employ a straightforward approach to identify LLM-generated reviews - doing an indirect prompt injection via the paper PDF to ask the LLM to embed a watermark. Our focus is on presenting watermarking schemes and statistical tests that maintain a bounded family-wise error rate, when a venue evaluates multiple reviews, with a higher power as compared to standard methods like Bonferroni correction. These guarantees hold without relying on any assumptions about human-written reviews. We also consider various methods for prompt injection including font embedding and jailbreaking. We evaluate the effectiveness and various tradeoffs of these methods, including different reviewer defenses. We find a high success rate in the embedding of our watermarks in LLM-generated reviews across models. We also find that our approach is resilient to common reviewer defenses, and that the bounds on error rates in our statistical tests hold in practice while having the power to flag LLM-generated reviews, while Bonferroni correction is infeasible.

Related papers

• ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviews [26.031039064337907]
  Academic paper review is a critical yet time-consuming task within the research community.<n>With the increasing volume of academic publications, automating the review process has become a significant challenge.<n>We propose ReviewAgents, a framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to generate academic paper reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T14:56:58Z)
• 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)
• AI-Driven Review Systems: Evaluating LLMs in Scalable and Bias-Aware Academic Reviews [18.50142644126276]
  We evaluate the alignment of automatic paper reviews with human reviews using an arena of human preferences by pairwise comparisons. We fine-tune an LLM to predict human preferences, predicting which reviews humans will prefer in a head-to-head battle between LLMs. We make the reviews of publicly available arXiv and open-access Nature journal papers available online, along with a free service which helps authors review and revise their research papers and improve their quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-19T19:10:38Z)
• WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipedia [59.96425443250666]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate the limitations of large language models (LLMs) In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLM-generated answers to questions based on contradictory passages from Wikipedia. We benchmark a diverse range of both closed and open-source LLMs under different QA scenarios, including RAG with a single passage, and RAG with 2 contradictory passages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T20:13:42Z)
• Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinement [75.7148545929689]
  Large language models (LLMs) improve their performance through self-feedback on certain tasks while degrade on others. We formally define LLM's self-bias - the tendency to favor its own generation. We analyze six LLMs on translation, constrained text generation, and mathematical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:10:39Z)
• PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
  Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs. We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z)
• Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well? [91.26543768665778]
  This study investigates the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T08:01:23Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)

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.