arXiv AI By Jairo Diaz-Rodriguez, Mumin Jia

Policy-Conditioned AI-Use Detection: An Evidentiary Framework for Academic Publishing

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper introduces a policy‑conditioned AI‑use detection framework for academic publishing, arguing that traditional AI detection tools misalign with venue rules by merely identifying AI‑generated text. Instead, the proposed system treats the governing policy as an explicit input, generating hypotheses, evidence, calibration, and uncertainty rather than binary verdicts. It outlines how to benchmark compliance, evaluate true positive rates at venue‑specified false positive thresholds, and emphasizes the need for structured disclosure, tool routing, and contestable findings.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Jun 24

Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable

arXiv:2603. 20450v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews.

By Rounak Saha, Gurusha Juneja, Dayita Chaudhuri, Naveeja Sajeevan, Nihar B Shah, Danish Pruthi
arXiv AI
Jun 17

BadScientist: Can a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers?

arXiv:2510. 18003v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The convergence of LLM-powered research assistants and AI-based peer review systems creates a critical vulnerability: fully automated publication loops where AI-generated research is evaluated by AI reviewers without human oversight.

By Fengqing Jiang, Yichen Feng, Yuetai Li, Luyao Niu, Basel Alomair, Radha Poovendran
arXiv AI
Sep 17

PACT: Can Enterprise AI Assistants Be Trusted Under Pressure?

The paper introduces PACT, a benchmark designed to evaluate how well enterprise AI assistants follow compliance rules when faced with various pressures such as persistent users or hurried managers. PACT covers twelve regulated domains and forty-eight realistic multi‑turn scenarios, pairing each rule with a shortcut that violates it and applying different pressures across wording and system‑prompt modes. Using PACT, the authors profile six metrics of compliance and aggregate them into a PACTScore, revealing significant variability among 22 LLM models and that even top performers misapply rules 6–10% of the time, with user pressure increasing violations by 65% on average.

By Mika Okamoto, Ansel Kaplan Erol