[Submitted on 11 Jun 2026]
[View PDF](/pdf/2606.13044)
[HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2606.13044v1)
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.
References & Citations
...
Bibliographic Explorer
(What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers
(What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps
(What is Litmaps?) scite Smart Citations
(What are Smart Citations?)# Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv
(What is alphaXiv?) CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers
(What is CatalyzeX?) DagsHub
(What is DagsHub?) Gotit.pub
(What is GotitPub?) Hugging Face
(What is Huggingface?) ScienceCast
(What is ScienceCast?)# Demos Influence Flower
(What are Influence Flowers?) CORE Recommender
(What is CORE?)# 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.