You Can Game AI Peer Review with Presentation-Only Revisions
A new study shows that by modifying only presentation-level content (abstract, narrative, etc.) without any hidden prompts or changes to scientific evidence, attackers can significantly manipulate AI peer reviewers, achieving a 75.1% success rate.
[2606.13044] No Hidden Prompts Needed! You Can Game AI Peer Review with Presentation-Only Revisions
[Submitted on 11 Jun 2026]
Title:No Hidden Prompts Needed! You Can Game AI Peer Review with Presentation-Only Revisions
View a PDF of the paper titled No Hidden Prompts Needed! You Can Game AI Peer Review with Presentation-Only Revisions, by Xu Yang and 12 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:As AI-generated reviews move from experimental tools into peer-review infrastructure, most robustness concerns have focused on explicit attacks such as hidden instructions and prompt injection. We study a harder and more policy-relevant failure mode: no hidden text, no prompt injection, and no changes to methods, experiments, figures, equations, proofs, or numerical results. The attacker modifies only presentation-level content, such as the abstract, contribution framing, related work, discussion, and narrative structure. We introduce adversarial repackaging: a closed-loop attack that uses AI-reviewer feedback to search for presentation-level revisions while keeping the scientific evidence fixed. Across three mainstream AI reviewers, adversarial repackaging achieves a 75.1% attack success rate and a mean score gain of +1.21/10. The effect is not explained by ordinary prose polishing. We also reveal that strategies that change how the reviewer interprets the paper, such as related-work repositioning and analytical discussion expansion, substantially outperform surface edits such as local polishing, table formatting, and algorithm boxes.
Our analysis reveals two deeper structural failure modes. First, AI reviewers are easier to impress than to convince: highlighting strengths reliably increases perceived merit, while attempts to dissolve weaknesses frequently backfire. Second, AI reviewers can confuse the appearance of addressing a limitation with actually resolving it, allowing unchanged evidence to be reinterpreted as stronger scientific contribution. These results show that the deployment risk is not only malicious hidden instructions, but the emergence of paper presentation itself as an optimization surface. We release a contamination-free rolling benchmark and attack framework for testing whether AI reviewers remain anchored to scientific content under presentation-only edits.
Comments: 35 pages, 5 figures
Subjects:
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2606.13044 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2606.13044v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.13044
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Xu Yang [view email] [v1] Thu, 11 Jun 2026 08:30:18 UTC (1,536 KB)
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
View a PDF of the paper titled No Hidden Prompts Needed! You Can Game AI Peer Review with Presentation-Only Revisions, by Xu Yang and 12 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
TeX Source
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CL
new | recent | 2026-06
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Loading...
Data provided by:
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
Author
Venue
Institution
Topic
About arXivLabs
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
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.
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)