'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' Who will watch the watchmen? On Detecting AI-generated peer-reviews
Sandeep Kumar, Mohit Sahu, Vardhan Gacche, Tirthankar Ghosal, Asif Ekbal
Abstract
The integrity of the peer-review process is vital for maintaining scientific rigor and trust within the academic community. With the steady increase in the usage of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT in academic writing, there is a growing concern that AI-generated texts could compromise scientific publishing, including peer-reviews. Previous works have focused on generic AI-generated text detection or have presented an approach for estimating the fraction of peer-reviews that can be AIgenerated. Our focus here is to solve a realworld problem by assisting the editor or chair in determining whether a review is written by ChatGPT or not. To address this, we introduce the Term Frequency (TF) model, which posits that AI often repeats tokens, and the Review Regeneration (RR) model, which is based on the idea that ChatGPT generates similar outputs upon re-prompting. We stress test these detectors against token attack and paraphrasing. Finally, we propose an effective defensive strategy to reduce the effect of paraphrasing on our models. Our findings suggest both our proposed methods perform better than the other AI text detectors. Our RR model is more robust, although our TF model performs better than the RR model without any attacks. We make our code, dataset, and model public 12 . * * Equal contribution. 1 https://github.com/sandeep82945/ AI-Review-Detection 2 https://www.iitp.ac.in/ ai-nlp-ml/resources. html
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 45b873ae-d7c7-4035-9cc4-5d2fdae53149Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on12
- DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability CurvatureEric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexander Khazatsky, Christopher D. Manning et al.ICML 2023 · 988 citations
- A Watermark for Large Language ModelsJohn Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping, Yuxin Wen, Jonathan Katz et al.ICML 2023 · 854 citations
- Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defenseKalpesh Krishna, Yixiao Song, Marzena Karpinska, John Wieting et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 657 citations
- RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial LearningXiaomeng Hu, Pin-Yu Chen, Tsung-Yi HoNeurIPS 2023 · 315 citations
- Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability CurvatureGuangsheng Bao, Yanbin Zhao, Zhiyang Teng, Linyi Yang et al.ICLR 2024 · 311 citations
Related papers
- Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Benchmarking AI Text Detection in Peer ReviewSungduk Yu, Man Luo, Avinash Madasu, Vasudev Lal et al.ICLR 2026 · 24 citations
- AI Wrote My Paper and All I Got was This False Negative:* Measuring the Efficacy of Commercial AI Text DetectorsSeth Layton, Bernardo B. P. Medeiros, Kevin R. B. Butler, Patrick TraynorS&P 2026 · 3 citations
- Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer ReviewsWeixin Liang, Zachary Izzo, Yaohui Zhang, Haley Lepp et al.ICML 2024 · 213 citations
- Navigating the Shadows: Unveiling Effective Disturbances for Modern AI Content DetectorsYing Zhou, Ben He, Le SunACL 2024
- How Large Language Models are Transforming Machine-Paraphrase PlagiarismJan Philip Wahle, Terry Ruas, Frederic Kirstein, Bela GippEMNLP 2022 · 26 citations
