CABAL: Multi-Agent Simulacra for Tracing the Effects of Collusive Bidding in Peer Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.05227v1
• Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2026 14:55:33 GMT
• Title: CABAL: Multi-Agent Simulacra for Tracing the Effects of Collusive Bidding in Peer Review
• Abstract summary: alg is an end-to-end multi-agent simulacra framework for studying reviewer assignment integrity.<n>We develop an affinity-guided collusive bidding strategy that uses mutual reviewer-paper affinities to construct collusion rings.
• Score: 20.449658717520876
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent reports during the AAAI-27 review cycle highlight the risk of reviewers coordinating bids for reciprocal assignment advantage. Prior work treats bidding, reviewer assignment, and review manipulation as separate stages, leaving the lifecycle effects of collusive bidding unclear. Real-world analysis is further constrained by typically unobservable collusive intent and the lack of counterfactuals for the same conference. Motivated by this gap, we introduce \alg, an end-to-end multi-agent simulacra framework for studying reviewer assignment integrity by holding the conference environment fixed and configuring LLM-driven reviewer agents with honest or collusive policies. We further develop an affinity-guided collusive bidding strategy that uses mutual reviewer-paper affinities to construct collusion rings and select target papers, producing expertise-consistent rather than arbitrarily targeted attacks. Controlled experiments show that collusive bidding more than doubles target-paper capture and that assigned colluders score target papers about two points higher than honest co-reviewers, while conference-wide effects remain comparatively modest. Evaluated bid-phase detectors provide only limited evidence of collusion: in a fixed-triplet detector stress test, native positive-bid graphs are confounded by benign affinity, while a Very-High-only diagnostic view enables precise but low-coverage local recovery.

Related papers

• ECO/CPO-DAG: A Contradiction-Based Accountability Layer for Adversarial Supply Chains [0.0]
  ECO/CPO-DAG is a domain-specific accountability protocol for adversarial supply chains.<n>It formalizes contradiction detection as a supplemental validation layer.<n>The protocol's boundary is explicit: it detects provable contradictions, not consistent lies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-07T21:03:26Z)
• PerceptionRubrics: Calibrating Multimodal Evaluation to Human Perception [75.70273182182397]
  PerceptionRubrics is a rubric-based evaluation framework.<n>It addresses the gap between saturated benchmark scores and real-world brittleness.<n>It pairs 1,038 information-dense images with over 10,000 instance-specific rubrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-26T17:59:15Z)
• Mitigating Perceptual Judgment Bias in Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge via Perceptual Perturbation and Reward Modeling [35.945096782147864]
  MLLM judges tend to reward plausible narratives over perceptually correct answers when visual evidence conflicts with textual cues.<n>We introduce the Perceptually Perturbed Judgment dataset, which constructs minimally edited counterfactual responses.<n>We develop a unified training framework that combines a structured GRPO-based reward with a batch-ranking objective, achieving coherent global ordering without explicit pairwise labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T17:59:46Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• When Reviews Disagree: Fine-Grained Contradiction Analysis in Scientific Peer Reviews [25.43097618275061]
  RevCI is an expert-annotated benchmark of peer-review pairs with evidence-level contradiction annotations with graded intensity labels.<n> IMPACT is a structured multi-agent framework that integrates aspect-conditioned evidence extraction, deliberative reasoning, and adjudication.<n>TIDE is a small language model that predicts contradiction evidence and intensity in a single forward pass.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T08:20:58Z)
• Group Cognition Learning: Making Everything Better Through Governed Two-Stage Agents Collaboration [13.299987551113809]
  Group Cognition Learning (GCL) is a governed collaboration paradigm that applies a two-stage protocol after modality-specific encoding.<n>GCL mitigates modality dominance and coupling, establishing state-of-the-art results across both regression and classification benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T03:19:34Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)
• SetAD: Semi-Supervised Anomaly Learning in Contextual Sets [25.628827917857603]
  Semi-supervised anomaly detection has shown great promise by effectively leveraging limited labeled data.<n>We propose SetAD, a novel framework that reframes semi-supervised AD as a Set-level Anomaly Detection task.<n>To enhance robustness and score calibration, we propose a context-calibrated anomaly scoring mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T13:27:59Z)
• Audit the Whisper: Detecting Steganographic Collusion in Multi-Agent LLMs [0.0]
  Audit the Whisper is a conference-grade research artifact that spans theory, benchmark design, detection, and validation.<n>Our contributions are: (i) a channel-capacity analysis showing how interventions such as paraphrase, rate limiting, and role permutation impose quantifiable capacity penalties-operationalised via paired-run Kullback-Leibler diagnostics.<n>We release anonymized regeneration scripts, anonymized manifests, and documentation so external auditors can reproduce every figure, satisfy double-blind requirements, and extend the framework with minimal effort.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T17:51:52Z)
• On the Detection of Reviewer-Author Collusion Rings From Paper Bidding [71.43634536456844]
  Collusion rings pose a major threat to the peer-review systems of computer science conferences. One approach to solve this problem would be to detect the colluding reviewers from their manipulated bids. No research has yet established that detecting collusion rings is even possible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T18:12:09Z)
• ReAct: Temporal Action Detection with Relational Queries [84.76646044604055]
  This work aims at advancing temporal action detection (TAD) using an encoder-decoder framework with action queries. We first propose a relational attention mechanism in the decoder, which guides the attention among queries based on their relations. Lastly, we propose to predict the localization quality of each action query at inference in order to distinguish high-quality queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-14T17:46:37Z)

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.