Are we still able to recognize pearls? Machine-driven peer review and the risk to creativity: An explainable RAG-XAI detection framework with markers extraction
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.07964v1
- Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:25:49 GMT
- Title: Are we still able to recognize pearls? Machine-driven peer review and the risk to creativity: An explainable RAG-XAI detection framework with markers extraction
- Abstract summary: We introduce an explainable framework (RAG-XAI) for assessing review quality and detecting automated patterns.<n>The framework achieves near-perfect detection performance, with XGBoost, Random Forest and LightGBM reaching 99.61% accuracy, AUC-ROC above 0.999 and F1-scores of 0.9925 on the test set.
- Score: 7.723181091241251
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: The integration of large language models (LLMs) into peer review raises a concern beyond authorship and detection: the potential cascading automation of the entire editorial process. As reviews become partially or fully machine-generated, it becomes plausible that editorial decisions may also be delegated to algorithmic systems, leading to a fully automated evaluation pipeline. They risk reshaping the criteria by which scientific work is assessed. This paper argues that machine-driven assessment may systematically favor standardized, pattern-conforming research while penalizing unconventional and paradigm-shifting ideas that require contextual human judgment. We consider that this shift could lead to epistemic homogenization, where researchers are implicitly incentivized to optimize their work for algorithmic approval rather than genuine discovery. To address this risk, we introduce an explainable framework (RAG-XAI) for assessing review quality and detecting automated patterns using markers LLM extractor, aiming to preserve transparency, accountability and creativity in science. The proposed framework achieves near-perfect detection performance, with XGBoost, Random Forest and LightGBM reaching 99.61% accuracy, AUC-ROC above 0.999 and F1-scores of 0.9925 on the test set, while maintaining extremely low false positive rates (<0.23%) and false negative rates (~0.8%). In contrast, the logistic regression baseline performs substantially worse (89.97% accuracy, F1-score 0.8314). Feature importance and SHAP analyses identify absence of personal signals and repetition patterns as the dominant predictors. Additionally, the RAG component achieves 90.5% top-1 retrieval accuracy, with strong same-class clustering in the embedding space, further supporting the reliability of the framework's outputs.
Related papers
- A Calibrated and Explainable Bimodal Machine Learning Framework for Hybrid Intrusion Detection [2.7368401741397377]
Modern communication systems face critical gaps in detecting unknown attacks and rare threat classes.<n>We propose a bimodal framework of calibrated and explainable machine learning (ML) for network security.<n>Our framework unifies known-class precision with open-set generalization without the complexity of deep learning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-08-17T06:25:29Z) - Severe Domain Shift in Skeleton-Based Action Recognition:A Study of Uncertainty Failure in Real-World Gym Environments [0.0]
We present a systematic study of a severe domain shift using a novel Gym2D dataset and the UCF101 dataset.<n>Our work challenges standard deployment assumptions, providing a principled safety analysis of both semantic and geometric skeleton recognition deployment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-16T17:37:17Z) - Moral Anchor System: A Predictive Framework for AI Value Alignment and Drift Prevention [0.0]
Key risk is value drift, where AI systems deviate from aligned values due to evolving contexts, learning dynamics, or unintended optimizations.<n>We propose the Moral Anchor System (MAS), a novel framework to detect, predict, and mitigate value drift in AI agents.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-05T07:24:23Z) - 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) - A Contrastive Learning-Guided Confident Meta-learning for Zero Shot Anomaly Detection [17.73056562717683]
CoZAD is a novel zero-shot anomaly detection framework.<n>It integrates soft confident learning with meta-learning and contrastive feature representation.<n>We show it outperforms existing methods on 6 out of 7 industrial benchmarks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-25T09:27:31Z) - RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z) - T2I-Eval-R1: Reinforcement Learning-Driven Reasoning for Interpretable Text-to-Image Evaluation [60.620408007636016]
We propose T2I-Eval-R1, a novel reinforcement learning framework that trains open-source MLLMs using only coarse-grained quality scores.<n>Our approach integrates Group Relative Policy Optimization into the instruction-tuning process, enabling models to generate both scalar scores and interpretable reasoning chains.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-23T13:44:59Z) - Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z) - Human-Calibrated Automated Testing and Validation of Generative Language Models [3.2855317710497633]
This paper introduces a comprehensive framework for the evaluation and validation of generative language models (GLMs)<n>It focuses on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems deployed in high-stakes domains such as banking.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-25T13:53:36Z) - From Adversarial Arms Race to Model-centric Evaluation: Motivating a
Unified Automatic Robustness Evaluation Framework [91.94389491920309]
Textual adversarial attacks can discover models' weaknesses by adding semantic-preserved but misleading perturbations to the inputs.
The existing practice of robustness evaluation may exhibit issues of incomprehensive evaluation, impractical evaluation protocol, and invalid adversarial samples.
We set up a unified automatic robustness evaluation framework, shifting towards model-centric evaluation to exploit the advantages of adversarial attacks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-29T14:55:20Z) - GREAT Score: Global Robustness Evaluation of Adversarial Perturbation using Generative Models [60.48306899271866]
We present a new framework, called GREAT Score, for global robustness evaluation of adversarial perturbation using generative models.
We show high correlation and significantly reduced cost of GREAT Score when compared to the attack-based model ranking on RobustBench.
GREAT Score can be used for remote auditing of privacy-sensitive black-box models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-19T14:58:27Z)
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.