BadScientist: Can a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18003v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:37:11 GMT
• Title: BadScientist: Can a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers?
• Authors: Fengqing Jiang, Yichen Feng, Yuetai Li, Luyao Niu, Basel Alomair, Radha Poovendran,
• Abstract summary: We investigate whether fabrication-oriented paper generation agents can deceive multi-model LLM review systems.<n>Our generator employs presentation-manipulation strategies requiring no real experiments.<n>Despite provably sound aggregation mathematics, integrity checking systematically fails.
• Score: 21.78901120638025
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The convergence of LLM-powered research assistants and AI-based peer review systems creates a critical vulnerability: fully automated publication loops where AI-generated research is evaluated by AI reviewers without human oversight. We investigate this through \textbf{BadScientist}, a framework that evaluates whether fabrication-oriented paper generation agents can deceive multi-model LLM review systems. Our generator employs presentation-manipulation strategies requiring no real experiments. We develop a rigorous evaluation framework with formal error guarantees (concentration bounds and calibration analysis), calibrated on real data. Our results reveal systematic vulnerabilities: fabricated papers achieve acceptance rates up to . Critically, we identify \textit{concern-acceptance conflict} -- reviewers frequently flag integrity issues yet assign acceptance-level scores. Our mitigation strategies show only marginal improvements, with detection accuracy barely exceeding random chance. Despite provably sound aggregation mathematics, integrity checking systematically fails, exposing fundamental limitations in current AI-driven review systems and underscoring the urgent need for defense-in-depth safeguards in scientific publishing.

Related papers

• The Story is Not the Science: Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Mechanistic Interpretability Research [56.80927148740585]
  We address the challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators.<n>We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent.<n>Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T19:00:02Z)
• Pre-review to Peer review: Pitfalls of Automating Reviews using Large Language Models [1.8349858105838042]
  Large Language Models are versatile general-task solvers, and their capabilities can truly assist people with scholarly peer review as textitpre-review agents.<n>While incredibly beneficial, automating academic peer-review, as a concept, raises concerns surrounding safety, research integrity, and the validity of the academic peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-14T09:56:07Z)
• The More You Automate, the Less You See: Hidden Pitfalls of AI Scientist Systems [11.543423308064275]
  AI scientist systems are capable of executing the full research workflow from hypothesis generation to paper writing.<n>This lack of scrutiny poses a risk of introducing flaws that could undermine the integrity, reliability, and trustworthiness of their research outputs.<n>We identify four potential failure modes in contemporary AI scientist systems: inappropriate benchmark selection, data leakage, metric misuse, and post-hoc selection bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-10T16:04:24Z)
• Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework [55.078301794183496]
  We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic.<n>This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims.<n>We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:48:00Z)
• CoCoNUTS: Concentrating on Content while Neglecting Uninformative Textual Styles for AI-Generated Peer Review Detection [60.52240468810558]
  We introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews.<n>We also develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T06:03:11Z)
• 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)
• LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness [58.334290876531036]
  We argue that current safety alignment research efforts for large language models are hindered by many intertwined sources of noise.<n>We propose a set of guidelines for reducing noise and bias in evaluations of future attack and defense papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T12:55:07Z)
• Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Benchmarking AI Text Detection in Peer Review [6.20631177269082]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T23:04:05Z)
• 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)

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.