Abstract:Peer review is a critical process for ensuring the integrity of published scientific research. Confidence in this process is predicated on the assumption that experts in the relevant domain give careful consideration to the merits of manuscripts which are submitted for publication. With the recent rapid advancements in the linguistic capabilities of large language models (LLMs), a new potential risk to the peer review process is that negligent reviewers will rely on LLMs to perform the often time consuming process of reviewing a paper. In this study, we investigate the ability of existing AI text detection algorithms to distinguish between peer reviews written by humans and different state-of-the-art LLMs. Our analysis shows that existing approaches fail to identify many GPT-4o written reviews without also producing a high number of false positive classifications. To address this deficiency, we propose a new detection approach which surpasses existing methods in the identification of GPT-4o written peer reviews at low levels of false positive classifications. Our work reveals the difficulty of accurately identifying AI-generated text at the individual review level, highlighting the urgent need for new tools and methods to detect this type of unethical application of generative AI.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is: With the rapid development of large - language models (LLMs) in language - generation capabilities, some irresponsible reviewers may rely on these models to complete the time - consuming paper - review work. This may affect the integrity and reliability of the peer - review process. Therefore, this paper aims to explore whether the existing AI text - detection algorithms can effectively distinguish peer - reviews written by humans and different state - of - the - art LLMs, and propose a new detection method to improve the recognition accuracy while reducing the false - positive rate. ### Background of the Paper and Problem Description 1. **Importance of Peer - Review** - Peer - review is an important process to ensure the integrity of published scientific research, and its credibility is based on the assumption that field experts will carefully evaluate submitted manuscripts. 2. **New Risks Brought by LLMs** - Recently, the language - generation capabilities of large - language models (LLMs) have made significant progress, enabling them to produce seemingly reasonable and authoritative answers in multiple fields, even on highly technical topics. - This progress may lead irresponsible reviewers to rely on LLMs to complete tedious review tasks, thus affecting the quality and fairness of the review. 3. **Limitations of Existing Research** - Although existing research has analyzed the presence of AI - generated text in peer - reviews, most studies have focused on the corpus level and lack in - depth exploration at the individual - comment level. 4. **Objectives of This Research** - Evaluate the performance of existing AI text - detection methods in identifying peer - reviews generated by LLMs. - Propose a new detection method to more accurately identify comments generated by LLMs such as GPT - 4 while maintaining a low false - positive rate. ### Main Contributions - **Experimental Design**: Use the OpenReview API to collect submitted manuscripts and their review comments for the ICLR conference from 2019 to 2024, and use LLMs such as GPT - 4 and Llama - 3.1 to generate AI review comments. - **Comparison of Detection Methods**: Compare multiple open - source and proprietary AI text - detection models and evaluate their ability to distinguish real reviews from AI - generated reviews. - **Proposal of a New Method**: Introduce a method based on anchor embeddings to detect AI - generated text by comparing the semantic similarity between a given review and a reference AI - generated review. - **Result Analysis**: The results show that existing methods have difficulty effectively detecting reviews generated by GPT - 4 with a low false - positive rate, while the new method performs well in this regard. ### Conclusion This research reveals the challenges faced by existing AI text - detection methods in identifying AI - generated peer - reviews and proposes directions for improvement. Specifically, the newly proposed anchor - embedding - based method can more accurately identify review comments generated by GPT - 4 while maintaining a low false - positive rate. This finding emphasizes the urgency of developing new tools and methods to deal with the unethical application of LLMs in peer - reviews. ### Examples of Formulas When discussing detection methods, some performance - metric calculation formulas are involved: - The definitions of **True Positive Rate (TPR)** and **False Positive Rate (FPR)** are as follows: \[ \text{TPR}=\frac{\text{True Positives}}{\text{True Positives}+\text{False Negatives}} \] \[ \text{FPR}=\frac{\text{False Positives}}{\text{False Positives}+\text{True Negatives}} \] These formulas are used to evaluate the performance of different detection methods and are compared in detail in the results section.

Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Investigating AI Text Detectability in Peer Review