mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Paraphrasing Adversarial Attack on LLM-as-a-Reviewer

arXiv 2601.06884 ↗First posted 11 Jan 2026cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The use of large language models (LLMs) in peer review systems has attracted growing attention, making it essential to examine their potential vulnerabilities. Prior attacks rely on prompt injection, which alters manuscript content and conflates injection susceptibility with evaluation robustness. We propose the Paraphrasing Adversarial Attack (PAA), a black-box optimization method that searches for paraphrased sequences yielding higher review scores while preserving semantic equivalence and linguistic naturalness. PAA leverages in-context learning, using previous paraphrases and their scores to guide candidate generation. Experiments across five ML and NLP conferences with three LLM reviewers and five attacking models show that PAA consistently increases review scores without changing the paper's claims. Human evaluation confirms that generated paraphrases maintain meaning and naturalness. We also find that attacked papers exhibit increased perplexity in reviews, offering a potential detection signal, and that paraphrasing submissions can partially mitigate attacks.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 32 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Jan 2026.

Builds on

32 of 42 references.

References · 32

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
  3. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  4. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  5. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
  6. 2023Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queriescited by 1,420
  7. 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
  8. 2024Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 368
  9. 2024Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biasescited by 323
  10. 2023A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Generalized Nested Jailbreak Prompts can Fool Large Language Models Easilycited by 259
  11. 2024Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 258
  12. 2023Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysiscited by 200
20 more
  1. 2024Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviewscited by 164
  2. 2024Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessmentcited by 126
  3. 2023ReviewerGPT? An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Paper Reviewingcited by 122
  4. 2022Why Should Adversarial Perturbations be Imperceptible? Rethink the Research Paradigm in Adversarial NLPcited by 102
  5. 2024Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Reviewcited by 53
  6. 2025Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025cited by 47
  7. 2024Social Bias Evaluation for Large Language Models Requires Prompt Variationscited by 40
  8. 2025Towards LLMs Robustness to Changes in Prompt Format Stylescited by 21
  9. 2025When Your Reviewer is an LLM: Biases, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Risks in Peer Reviewcited by 19
  10. 2025Adversarial Paraphrasing: A Universal Attack for Humanizing AI-Generated Textcited by 17
  11. 2025Breaking the Reviewer: Assessing the Vulnerability of Large Language Models in Automated Peer Review Under Textual Adversarial Attackscited by 16
  12. 2025Adversarial Poetry as a Universal Single-Turn Jailbreak Mechanism in Large Language Modelscited by 15
  13. 2025Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM Generated Reviews of Scientific Publicationscited by 13
  14. 2025Justice in Judgment: Unveiling (Hidden) Bias in LLM-assisted Peer Reviewscited by 11
  15. 2025Automatic Evaluation Metrics for Artificially Generated Scientific Researchcited by 8
  16. 2025When Reject Turns into Accept: Quantifying the Vulnerability of LLM-Based Scientific Reviewers to Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 6
  17. 2025Prestige over merit: An adapted audit of LLM bias in peer reviewcited by 5
  18. 2025Code Roulette: How Prompt Variability Affects LLM Code Generationcited by 4
  19. 2025Online Learning Defense against Iterative Jailbreak Attacks via Prompt Optimizationcited by 3
  20. 2025Say It Differently: Linguistic Styles as Jailbreak Vectorscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 8.

8 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026LLM-as-a-Reviewer: Benchmarking Their Ability, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Resistance as Paper Reviewers
  2. 2025Misleading Large Language Models used (or misused) in Scientific Peer-Reviewing via Hidden Prompt-Injection Attacks
  3. 2025Multilingual Hidden Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM-Based Academic Reviewing
  4. 2026SafeReview: Defending LLM-based Review Systems Against Adversarial Hidden Prompts
  5. 2026Does AI Reviewer See the Full Picture? Attacking and Defending Multimodal Peer Review
  6. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense
  7. 2025Aspect-Guided Multi-Level Perturbation Analysis of Large Language Models in Automated Peer Review
  8. 2024Finding a Needle in the Adversarial Haystack: A Targeted Paraphrasing Approach For Uncovering Edge Cases with Minimal Distribution Distortion