mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' Who will watch the watchmen? On Detecting AI-generated peer-reviews

arXiv 2410.09770 ↗First posted 13 Oct 2024cs.CL cs.AI cs.DLcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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 AI-generated. Our focus here is to solve a real-world 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.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 32 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2024.

Builds on

32 of 55 references.

References · 32

  1. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
  2. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  3. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  4. 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,304
  5. 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 667
  6. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
  7. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
  8. 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
  9. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 401
  10. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 372
  11. 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 278
  12. 2023RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learningcited by 187
20 more
  1. 2024Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviewscited by 160
  2. 2018A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applicationscited by 135
  3. 2023The Troubling Emergence of Hallucination in Large Language Models -- An Extensive Definition, Quantification, and Prescriptive Remediationscited by 130
  4. 2020Adversarial Watermarking Transformer: Towards Tracing Text Provenance with Data Hidingcited by 121
  5. 2023Intrinsic Dimension Estimation for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 111
  6. 2023Towards LLM-based Fact Verification on News Claims with a Hierarchical Step-by-Step Prompting Methodcited by 97
  7. 2023On the Possibilities of AI-Generated Text Detectioncited by 88
  8. 2023Testing of Detection Tools for AI-Generated Textcited by 86
  9. 2023Robust Multi-bit Natural Language Watermarking through Invariant Featurescited by 76
  10. 2023LLMDet: A Third Party Large Language Models Generated Text Detection Toolcited by 44
  11. 2023GPT-Sentinel: Distinguishing Human and ChatGPT Generated Contentcited by 40
  12. 2020Attacking Neural Text Detectorscited by 37
  13. 2023ARIES: A Corpus of Scientific Paper Edits Made in Response to Peer Reviewscited by 34
  14. 2023Is GPT-4 a reliable rater? Evaluating Consistency in GPT-4 Text Ratingscited by 33
  15. 2023Counter Turing Test CT^2: AI-Generated Text Detection is Not as Easy as You May Think -- Introducing AI Detectability Indexcited by 14
  16. 2023MidMed: Towards Mixed-Type Dialogues for Medical Consultationcited by 13
  17. 2022SynSciPass: detecting appropriate uses of scientific text generationcited by 10
  18. 2023New Evaluation Metrics Capture Quality Degradation due to LLM Watermarkingcited by 10
  19. 2024MAiDE-up: Multilingual Deception Detection of GPT-generated Hotel Reviewscited by 5
  20. 2024AiGen-FoodReview: A Multimodal Dataset of Machine-Generated Restaurant Reviews and Images on Social Mediacited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 4.

8 papers.