Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This research exposes critical reliability gaps in LLM-based peer reviewers, demonstrating that static evaluation methods fail to detect vulnerabilities arising from dynamic content perturbations. By introducing SCOPE-Fuzzer, the study provides a strategy-aware approach to systematically probe and improve the robustness of automated review systems against logical and argumentative attacks. This work is essential for establishing trustworthy AI infrastructure in scientific publishing workflows.
Sources coveringarXiv, Quantum Frontiers, The Quantum Insider, Latent Space
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Breaking the Illusion of Review Reliability under Static Evaluation: SCOPE Fuzzing for LLM-based Scientific Reviewers

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.37097v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The rapid growth of submissions and reviewing workload has accelerated the use of large language models (LLMs) in peer review. Prior studies suggest that LLM-based reviewers can penalize content perturbations, such as overclaiming, indicating a certain degree of reliability. Yet these conclusions are largely based on a narrow set of perturbation strategies instantiated with static templates, providing limited evidence of actual reliability. In this paper, we construct a three-level evaluation framework covering perturbations to surface presentation, argumentative logic, and value judgment. Experiments on representative LLM-based reviewers reveal two limitations of static evaluation: stratified vulnerability, where perturbation effects depend on whether the paper's original review score is high or low, and perturbation undercoverage, where a single template misses vulnerabilities exposed by diverse realizations. To address these limitations, we propose SCOPE-Fuzzer, a strategy-aware fuzzer that combines feedback-driven strategy selection with adaptive mutation of paper content. By iteratively probing reviewers with dynamic perturbations, SCOPE-Fuzzer consistently uncovers vulnerabilities overlooked by static evaluation and other baselines.

Abstract:The rapid growth of submissions and reviewing workload has accelerated the use of large language models (LLMs) in peer review. Prior studies suggest that LLM-based reviewers can penalize content perturbations, such as overclaiming, indicating a certain degree of reliability. Yet these conclusions are largely based on a narrow set of perturbation strategies instantiated with static templates, providing limited evidence of actual reliability. In this paper, we construct a three-level evaluation framework covering perturbations to surface presentation, argumentative logic, and value judgment. Experiments on representative LLM-based reviewers reveal two limitations of static evaluation: stratified vulnerability, where perturbation effects depend on whether the paper's original review score is high or low, and perturbation undercoverage, where a single template misses vulnerabilities exposed by diverse realizations. To address these limitations, we propose SCOPE-Fuzzer, a strategy-aware fuzzer that combines feedback-driven strategy selection with adaptive mutation of paper content. By iteratively probing reviewers with dynamic perturbations, SCOPE-Fuzzer consistently uncovers vulnerabilities overlooked by static evaluation and other baselines.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2609.37097 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2609.37097v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.37097 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 255 words

Related coverage