This page organizes papers related to artificial intelligence published around the world. This page is summarized using Google Gemini and is operated on a non-profit basis. The copyright of the paper belongs to the author and the relevant institution. When sharing, simply cite the source.
Breaking the Reviewer: Assessing the Vulnerability of Large Language Models in Automated Peer Review Under Textual Adversarial Attacks
Created by
Haebom
Author
Tzu-Ling Lin, Wei-Chih Chen, Teng-Fang Hsiao, Hou-I Liu, Ya-Hsin Yeh, Yu Kai Chan, Wen-Sheng Lien, Po-Yen Kuo, Philip S. Yu, Hong-Han Shuai
Outline
The increasing number of submissions in the peer review process, essential for maintaining academic quality, is placing an increasing burden on reviewers. Large-Scale Language Models (LLMs) can assist in this process, but their vulnerability to text-based adversarial attacks raises reliability concerns. This paper investigates the robustness of LLMs as automated reviewers exposed to such attacks. Key questions include: (1) how effectively LLMs generate reviews compared to human reviewers; (2) the impact of adversarial attacks on the reliability of LLM-generated reviews; and (3) the challenges of LLM-based reviewing and potential mitigation strategies. Our evaluation revealed a significant vulnerability: text manipulation can distort LLM evaluations. This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of LLM performance in automated peer review and analyzes its robustness against adversarial attacks.
Takeaways, Limitations
•
Identifying the potential benefits of an LLM-based automated peer review system and its vulnerability to text manipulation.
•
Demonstrating the negative impact of adversarial attacks on the credibility of LLM-generated reviews.
•
Highlighting the need for further research and mitigation strategies to improve the robustness of LLM-based review systems.
•
Lack of specific attack types and mitigation strategies presented in the paper
•
Lack of specific scenarios and considerations for system application in real-world academic environments.
•
Limited evaluation of specific LLM models and benchmark data