Sem-Detect: Semantic Level Detection of AI Generated Peer-Reviews
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
How can we distinguish whether a peer review was written by a human or generated by an AI model? We argue that, in this setting, authorship should not be attributed solely from the textual features of a review, but also from the ideas, judgments, and claims it expresses. To this end, we propose Sem-Detect, an authorship detection method for peer reviews that operationalizes this principle by combining textual features with claim-level semantic analysis. Sem-Detect compares a target review against multiple AI-generated reviews of the same paper, leveraging the observation that different AI models tend to converge on similar points, while human reviewers introduce more unique and diverse ones. As a result, Sem-Detect is able to distinguish fully AI reviews from authentic human-written ones, including those that have been refined using an LLM but still reflect human judgment. Across a dataset of over 20,000 peer reviews from ICLR and NeurIPS conferences, Sem-Detect improves over the strongest baseline by 25.5% in [email protected]% FPR in the binary setting. Moreover, in the three-class scenario, we empirically show that LLM refinement preserves the semantic signals of human reviews, which remain distinct from the patterns exhibited by fully AI-generated text; as a result, fewer than 3.5% of LLM-refined human reviews are misclassified as AI-generated.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2026.
Builds on
25 of 44 references.
References · 25
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
- 2025gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Cardcited by 1,258
- 2025OpenAI GPT-5 System Cardcited by 910
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
- 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 667
- 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 553
- 2024Multilingual E5 Text Embeddings: A Technical Reportcited by 357
- 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 278
- 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 260
- 2023Provable Robust Watermarking for AI-Generated Textcited by 259
13 more
- 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 255
- 2023RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learningcited by 187
- 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 160
- 2024Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviewscited by 160
- 2023MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wildcited by 130
- 2024Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinementcited by 111
- 2023A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 101
- 2023Dense X Retrieval: What Retrieval Granularity Should We Use?cited by 88
- 2024The AI Review Lottery: Widespread AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Boost Paper Scores and Acceptance Ratescited by 66
- 2025EditLens: Quantifying the Extent of AI Editing in Textcited by 26
- 2024Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Investigating AI Text Detectability in Peer Reviewcited by 19
- 2025Detecting LLM-Generated Peer Reviewscited by 18
- 2024'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' Who will watch the watchmen? On Detecting AI-generated peer-reviewscited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.