mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Does AI Reviewer See the Full Picture? Attacking and Defending Multimodal Peer Review

arXiv 2606.12716 ↗First posted 10 Jun 2026cs.CLcited by 1

On the map: LLM safety and security → Prompt injection and agent security

Abstract (arXiv)

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) into scientific peer-review workflows introduces novel and significant risks for adversarial manipulation, especially given the multimodal nature of scientific papers where figures, not just text, convey core evidence. This creates a significant gap: current robustness studies on AI peer-review are overwhelmingly text-only. Moreover, the problem is distinct from standard jailbreaking, as a peer-review attack seeks to induce a domain-specific, targeted failure (e.g., "inflate this score") rather than a general safety policy violation, for which no practical defenses exist. To address this, we introduce PaperGuard, the first comprehensive benchmark designed to systematically evaluate and defend AI-generated peer-review against these domain-specific, cross-modal attacks. Our framework is built on three pillars: (1) a new multimodal peer-review dataset spanning multiple scientific domains; (2) a unified suite of attacks, including black-box prompt injections and white-box perturbations, specifically designed to target both text (GCG) and figures (PGD); and (3) a practical defense, motivated by the long-context challenge of academic papers, that uses chunk-based embedding search to efficiently localize and mitigate harmful instructions. Our extensive experiments, conducted across state-of-the-art models, confirm that AI reviewers are pervasively vulnerable. PaperGuard establishes the foundational benchmark, protocols, and actionable defense necessary to pioneer trustworthy, attack-resilient AI-assisted scholarly reviewing.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 41 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2026.

Builds on

41 of 57 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Hidden Prompts in Manuscripts Exploit AI-Assisted Peer Review8 Jul

Other references · 40

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
  3. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  4. 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,383
  5. 2016Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networkscited by 2,976
  6. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
  7. 2020Reliable evaluation of adversarial robustness with an ensemble of diverse parameter-free attackscited by 1,442
  8. 2018Obfuscated Gradients Give a False Sense of Security: Circumventing Defenses to Adversarial Examplescited by 1,259
  9. 2022Text Embeddings by Weakly-Supervised Contrastive Pre-trainingcited by 1,216
  10. 2018Attention-based Deep Multiple Instance Learningcited by 1,077
  11. 2024The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discoverycited by 1,002
  12. 2023Towards General Text Embeddings with Multi-stage Contrastive Learningcited by 705
28 more
  1. 2019Is BERT Really Robust? A Strong Baseline for Natural Language Attack on Text Classification and Entailmentcited by 663
  2. 2020BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial Attack Against BERT Using BERTcited by 488
  3. 2023A Survey on Large Language Model (LLM) Security and Privacy: The Good, the Bad, and the Uglycited by 380
  4. 2018Black-box Generation of Adversarial Text Sequences to Evade Deep Learning Classifierscited by 341
  5. 2017Synthetic and Natural Noise Both Break Neural Machine Translationcited by 304
  6. 2021Hidden Killer: Invisible Textual Backdoor Attacks with Syntactic Triggercited by 203
  7. 2023Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysiscited by 195
  8. 2021Mind the Style of Text! Adversarial and Backdoor Attacks Based on Text Style Transfercited by 147
  9. 2018A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applicationscited by 135
  10. 2024E5-V: Universal Embeddings with Multimodal Large Language Modelscited by 123
  11. 2023ReviewerGPT? An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Paper Reviewingcited by 118
  12. 2024Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessmentcited by 117
  13. 2024AgentReview: Exploring Peer Review Dynamics with LLM Agentscited by 92
  14. 2023Verbosity Bias in Preference Labeling by Large Language Modelscited by 89
  15. 2021Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing?cited by 63
  16. 2024LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewingcited by 62
  17. 2022NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Reviewcited by 60
  18. 2025Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A surveycited by 59
  19. 2020Generating Natural Language Attacks in a Hard Label Black Box Settingcited by 50
  20. 2024Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactionscited by 43
  21. 2021MReD: A Meta-Review Dataset for Structure-Controllable Text Generationcited by 42
  22. 2023GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Studycited by 40
  23. 2024Automated Peer Reviewing in Paper SEA: Standardization, Evaluation, and Analysiscited by 33
  24. 2025ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviewscited by 28
  25. 2024What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?cited by 24
  26. 2025Breaking the Reviewer: Assessing the Vulnerability of Large Language Models in Automated Peer Review Under Textual Adversarial Attackscited by 14
  27. 2025MMReview: A Multidisciplinary and Multimodal Benchmark for LLM-Based Peer Review Automationcited by 9
  28. 2020Automatic generation of reviews of scientific paperscited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025AI and the Future of Academic Peer Review
  2. 2026PeerPrism: Peer Evaluation Expertise vs Review-writing AI
  3. 2026LLM-Based Scientific Peer Review: Methods, Benchmarks, and Reliability Challenges
  4. 2026How Can Rhetoric Reward-Hack AI Reviewers? Dissecting Rhetorical Sensitivity in AI-Based Peer Review
  5. 2025Aspect-Guided Multi-Level Perturbation Analysis of Large Language Models in Automated Peer Review
  6. 2025BadScientist: Can a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers?
  7. 2026Benchmarking Agentic Review Systems
  8. 2026LitReview Arena: Evaluating Literature Review Agents with Battle-Style Peer Review Platform