AI peer review systems are vulnerable to prompt injections, prestige biases, assertion strength effects, and contextual poisoning, as demonstrated by a new attack taxonomy and causal experiments on real conference submissions.
Title resolution pending
2 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
2
Pith papers citing it
citation-role summary
background 2
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.AI 2years
2026 2verdicts
UNVERDICTED 2roles
background 2representative citing papers
The paper delivers a stage-by-stage roadmap for AI in research, showing reliable assistance in retrieval and tool tasks but fragility in novelty and judgment, advocating human-governed collaboration.
citing papers explorer
-
When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?
AI peer review systems are vulnerable to prompt injections, prestige biases, assertion strength effects, and contextual poisoning, as demonstrated by a new attack taxonomy and causal experiments on real conference submissions.
-
AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide
The paper delivers a stage-by-stage roadmap for AI in research, showing reliable assistance in retrieval and tool tasks but fragility in novelty and judgment, advocating human-governed collaboration.