Who Writes What: Unveiling the Impact of Author Roles on AI-generated Text Detection

The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates accurate AI-generated text detection. However, current approaches largely overlook the influence of author characteristics. We investigate how sociolinguistic attributes-gender, CEFR proficiency, academic field, and language environment-impact state-of-the-art AI text detectors. Using the ICNALE corpus of human-authored texts and parallel AI-generated texts from diverse LLMs, we conduct a rigorous evaluation employing multi-factor ANOVA and weighted least squares (WLS). Our results reveal significant biases: CEFR proficiency and language environment consistently affected detector accuracy, while gender and academic field showed detector-dependent effects. These findings highlight the crucial need for socially aware AI text detection to avoid unfairly penalizing specific demographic groups. We offer novel empirical evidence, a robust statistical framework, and actionable insights for developing more equitable and reliable detection systems in real-world, out-of-domain contexts. This work paves the way for future research on bias mitigation, inclusive evaluation benchmarks, and socially responsible LLM detectors.

Aspect-Guided Multi-Level Perturbation Analysis of Large Language Models in Automated Peer Review

We propose an aspect-guided, multi-level perturbation framework to evaluate the robustness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in automated peer review. Our framework explores perturbations in three key components of the peer review process-papers, reviews, and rebuttals-across several quality aspects, including contribution, soundness, presentation, tone, and completeness. By applying targeted perturbations and examining their effects on both LLM-as-Reviewer and LLM-as-Meta-Reviewer, we investigate how aspect-based manipulations, such as omitting methodological details from papers or altering reviewer conclusions, can introduce significant biases in the review process. We identify several potential vulnerabilities: review conclusions that recommend a strong reject may significantly influence meta-reviews, negative or misleading reviews may be wrongly interpreted as thorough, and incomplete or hostile rebuttals can unexpectedly lead to higher acceptance rates. Statistical tests show that these biases persist under various Chain-of-Thought prompting strategies, highlighting the lack of robust critical evaluation in current LLMs. Our framework offers a practical methodology for diagnosing these vulnerabilities, thereby contributing to the development of more reliable and robust automated reviewing systems.

Evaluating Self-Generated Documents for Enhancing Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Large Language Models

In retrieval-augmented generation systems, the integration of self-generated documents (SGDs) alongside retrieved content has emerged as a promising strategy for enhancing the performance of large language model. However, previous research primarily focuses on optimizing the use of SGDs, with the inherent properties of SGDs remaining underexplored. Therefore, this paper conducts a comprehensive analysis of different types of SGDs and experiments on various knowledge-intensive tasks. We develop a taxonomy of SGDs grounded in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) to compare the influence of different SGD categories. Our findings offer key insights into what kinds of SGDs most effectively contribute to improving LLM's performance. The results and further fusion methods based on SGD categories also provide practical guidelines for taking better advantage of SGDs to achieve significant advancements in knowledge-driven QA tasks with RAG.

SMART-RAG: Selection using Determinantal Matrices for Augmented Retrieval

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has greatly improved large language models (LLMs) by enabling them to generate accurate, contextually grounded responses through the integration of external information. However, conventional RAG approaches, which prioritize top-ranked documents based solely on query-context relevance, often introduce redundancy and conflicting information. This issue is particularly evident in unsupervised retrieval settings, where there are no mechanisms to effectively mitigate these problems, leading to suboptimal context selection. To address this, we propose Selection using Matrices for Augmented Retrieval (SMART) in question answering tasks, a fully unsupervised and training-free framework designed to optimize context selection in RAG. SMART leverages Determinantal Point Processes (DPPs) to simultaneously model relevance, diversity and conflict, ensuring the selection of potentially high-quality contexts. Experimental results across multiple datasets demonstrate that SMART significantly enhances QA performance and surpasses previous unsupervised context selection methods, showing a promising strategy for RAG.