arXiv (All)
open access
A Missing Piece for Trustworthy AI Reviewers: From Benchmarking Rhetorical Robustness to SciCore Review
AI reviewers can assign different judgments to manuscripts that report the same science in different wording, potentially rewarding rhetorical optimization over scientific improvement. We formulate Rhetorical Robustness as the joint requirement of stability across content-preserving rewrites and dis
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishing#984615
- AAAI: Adversarial AI-Assisted Inquiry: An Experimental Proposal#726074
- The Death of the Gatekeeper AI as an Epistemic Substrate for Constraint-Based Legitimacy#89143
- "Give a Positive Review Only": An Early Investigation Into In-Paper Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for AI Reviewers#984083
- Sequential knowledge editing breaks a model's ability to tell good evidence from bad, without costing it accuracy#1077515
Record · ID 1143994
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive