Who Wrote It Is Not Enough: Detecting Who Contributed the Insight

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in scientific peer review, assisting with drafting, rewriting, expansion, and refinement. However, existing peer-review LLM detection methods largely treat authorship as a binary problem-human vs. AI-without accounting for the hybrid nature of modern review workflows. In practice, evaluative ideas and surface realization may originate from different sources, creating a spectrum of human-AI collaboration. In this work, we introduce PeerPrism, a large-scale benchmark of 20,690 peer reviews explicitly designed to disentangle idea provenance from text provenance. We construct controlled generation regimes spanning fully human, fully synthetic, and multiple hybrid transformations. This design enables systematic evaluation of whether detectors identify the origin of the surface text or the origin of the evaluative reasoning. We benchmark state-of-the-art LLM text detection methods on PeerPrism. While several methods achieve high accuracy on the standard binary task (human vs. fully synthetic), their predictions diverge sharply under hybrid regimes. In particular, when ideas originate from humans but the surface text is AI-generated, detectors frequently disagree and produce contradictory classifications. Accompanied by stylometric and semantic analyses, our results show that current detection methods conflate surface realization with intellectual contribution. Overall, we demonstrate that LLM detection in peer review cannot be reduced to a binary attribution problem. Instead, authorship must be modeled as a multidimensional construct spanning semantic reasoning and stylistic realization. PeerPrism is the first benchmark evaluating human-AI collaboration in these settings. We release all code, data, prompts, and evaluation scripts to facilitate reproducible research at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/PeerPrism.

While modern AI detectors identify who wrote the words, emerging policies on AI use increasingly hinge on a different question: who came up with the ideas? We introduce IdeaLens, a detector that identifies whether a document's ideas came from a human or AI (idea provenance), regardless of who wrote its words. To focus IdeaLens on ideas rather than prose, we represent documents as outlines: lists of items that each pair a discourse role with a brief, paraphrased description of the content, minimizing word-level overlap with the raw text. We train IdeaLens on 1M FineWeb documents with silver labels from Pangram, a prose provenance detector. Since the outlines are largely stripped of surface-level information, the labels must be fit mainly through the ideas. In a controlled study, IdeaLens's AI flag rate drops from 95% to 7% as models write from increasingly detailed human plans, while Pangram 4 still flags 92%; from AI-derived plans, IdeaLens stays above 96%. Conversely, on a new dataset of 50 stories that human authors wrote from AI-generated plans, IdeaLens flags 68% of the stories as AI, compared to 8% for Pangram 4. On a comprehensive suite of 19 existing detection benchmarks, we show that IdeaLens maintains strong detection rates at low false positive rates, suggesting that ideas themselves provide a powerful discriminative signal, and its performance holds across domains, formats, and languages. Finally, we examine 90K predictions from IdeaLens to characterize systematic differences between human and AI ideation. We release our models and labeled datasets to facilitate future research on idea provenance detection.

How can we distinguish whether a peer review was written by a human or generated by an AI model? We argue that, in this setting, authorship should not be attributed solely from the textual features of a review, but also from the ideas, judgments, and claims it expresses. To this end, we propose Sem-Detect, an authorship detection method for peer reviews that operationalizes this principle by combining textual features with claim-level semantic analysis. Sem-Detect compares a target review against multiple AI-generated reviews of the same paper, leveraging the observation that different AI models tend to converge on similar points, while human reviewers introduce more unique and diverse ones. As a result, Sem-Detect is able to distinguish fully AI reviews from authentic human-written ones, including those that have been refined using an LLM but still reflect human judgment. Across a dataset of over 20,000 peer reviews from ICLR and NeurIPS conferences, Sem-Detect improves over the strongest baseline by 25.5% in TPR@0.1% FPR in the binary setting. Moreover, in the three-class scenario, we empirically show that LLM refinement preserves the semantic signals of human reviews, which remain distinct from the patterns exhibited by fully AI-generated text; as a result, fewer than 3.5% of LLM-refined human reviews are misclassified as AI-generated.