CoCoNUTS: Concentrating on Content while Neglecting Uninformative Textual Styles for AI-Generated Peer Review Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The growing integration of large language models (LLMs) into the peer review process presents potential risks to the fairness and reliability of scholarly evaluation. While LLMs offer valuable assistance for reviewers with language refinement, there is growing concern over their use to generate substantive review content. Existing general AI-generated text detectors are vulnerable to paraphrasing attacks and struggle to distinguish between surface language refinement and substantial content generation, suggesting that they primarily rely on stylistic cues. When applied to peer review, this limitation can result in unfairly suspecting reviews with permissible AI-assisted language enhancement, while failing to catch deceptively humanized AI-generated reviews. To address this, we propose a paradigm shift from style-based to content-based detection. Specifically, we introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews, covering six distinct modes of human-AI collaboration. Furthermore, we develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, designed to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content. Our work offers a practical foundation for evaluating the use of LLMs in peer review, and contributes to the development of more precise, equitable, and reliable detection methods for real-world scholarly applications. Our code and data will be publicly available at https://github.com/Y1hanChen/COCONUTS.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Aug 2025.
Builds on
18 of 27 references.
References · 18
- 2018CosFace: Large Margin Cosine Loss for Deep Face Recognitioncited by 968
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
- 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 401
- 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 278
- 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 255
- 2023Nougat: Neural Optical Understanding for Academic Documentscited by 240
- 2024Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviewscited by 160
- 2021TURINGBENCH: A Benchmark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neural Text Generationcited by 118
- 2023MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 90
- 2022Real or Fake Text?: Investigating Human Ability to Detect Boundaries Between Human-Written and Machine-Generated Textcited by 63
- 2024Can AI writing be salvaged? Mitigating Idiosyncrasies and Improving Human-AI Alignment in the Writing Process through Editscited by 49
- 2024LLM-as-a-Coauthor: Can Mixed Human-Written and Machine-Generated Text Be Detected?cited by 47
6 more
- 2023LLMDet: A Third Party Large Language Models Generated Text Detection Toolcited by 44
- 2023HC3 Plus: A Semantic-Invariant Human ChatGPT Comparison Corpuscited by 33
- 2025Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Benchmarking AI Text Detection in Peer Reviewcited by 18
- 2024Beyond Binary: Towards Fine-Grained LLM-Generated Text Detection via Role Recognition and Involvement Measurementcited by 16
- 2024'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' Who will watch the watchmen? On Detecting AI-generated peer-reviewscited by 8
- 2025OpenTuringBench: An Open-Model-based Benchmark and Framework for Machine-Generated Text Detection and Attributioncited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishingcited by 1
- 2026Team DACTYL at PAN 2026: Bayesian Data Mixing and Empirical X-risk Minimization for AI-text Detectioncited by 0
- 2026How Much Were You Told? Measuring External Information in Peer Reviewscited by 0
- 2026How Much Were You Told? Measuring External Information in Peer Reviews23 Sep 2026
- 2026The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishing7 Sep 2026
- 2026Team DACTYL at PAN 2026: Bayesian Data Mixing and Empirical X-risk Minimization for AI-text Detection19 Jul 2026