mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Sem-Detect: Semantic Level Detection of AI Generated Peer-Reviews

arXiv 2605.21713 ↗First posted 20 May 2026cs.CLcited by 3

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

  1. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  2. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  3. 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
  4. 2025gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Cardcited by 1,258
  5. 2025OpenAI GPT-5 System Cardcited by 910
  6. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
  7. 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 667
  8. 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 553
  9. 2024Multilingual E5 Text Embeddings: A Technical Reportcited by 357
  10. 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 278
  11. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 260
  12. 2023Provable Robust Watermarking for AI-Generated Textcited by 259
13 more
  1. 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 255
  2. 2023RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learningcited by 187
  3. 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 160
  4. 2024Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviewscited by 160
  5. 2023MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wildcited by 130
  6. 2024Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinementcited by 111
  7. 2023A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 101
  8. 2023Dense X Retrieval: What Retrieval Granularity Should We Use?cited by 88
  9. 2024The AI Review Lottery: Widespread AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Boost Paper Scores and Acceptance Ratescited by 66
  10. 2025EditLens: Quantifying the Extent of AI Editing in Textcited by 26
  11. 2024Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Investigating AI Text Detectability in Peer Reviewcited by 19
  12. 2025Detecting LLM-Generated Peer Reviewscited by 18
  13. 2024'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' Who will watch the watchmen? On Detecting AI-generated peer-reviewscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.