Are we still able to recognize pearls? Machine-driven peer review and the risk to creativity: An explainable RAG-XAI detection framework with markers extraction

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into peer review raises a concern beyond authorship and detection: the potential cascading automation of the entire editorial process. As reviews become partially or fully machine-generated, it becomes plausible that editorial decisions may also be delegated to algorithmic systems, leading to a fully automated evaluation pipeline. They risk reshaping the criteria by which scientific work is assessed. This paper argues that machine-driven assessment may systematically favor standardized, pattern-conforming research while penalizing unconventional and paradigm-shifting ideas that require contextual human judgment. We consider that this shift could lead to epistemic homogenization, where researchers are implicitly incentivized to optimize their work for algorithmic approval rather than genuine discovery. To address this risk, we introduce an explainable framework (RAG-XAI) for assessing review quality and detecting automated patterns using markers LLM extractor, aiming to preserve transparency, accountability and creativity in science. The proposed framework achieves near-perfect detection performance, with XGBoost, Random Forest and LightGBM reaching 99.61% accuracy, AUC-ROC above 0.999 and F1-scores of 0.9925 on the test set, while maintaining extremely low false positive rates (<0.23%) and false negative rates (~0.8%). In contrast, the logistic regression baseline performs substantially worse (89.97% accuracy, F1-score 0.8314). Feature importance and SHAP analyses identify absence of personal signals and repetition patterns as the dominant predictors. Additionally, the RAG component achieves 90.5% top-1 retrieval accuracy, with strong same-class clustering in the embedding space, further supporting the reliability of the framework's outputs.

Preference learning in shades of gray: Interpretable and bias-aware reward modeling for human preferences

Learning human preferences in language models remains fundamentally challenging, as reward modeling relies on subtle, subjective comparisons or shades of gray rather than clear-cut labels. This study investigates the limits of current approaches and proposes a feature-augmented framework to better capture the multidimensional nature of human judgment. Using the Anthropic HHRLHF dataset, we evaluate ten diverse large language models LLMs under a standard pairwise preference setting, where baseline performance remains below 0.74 ROC AUC, highlighting the difficulty of the task. To address this, we enrich textual representations with interpretable signals: response length, refusal indicators, toxicity scores and prompt response semantic similarity, enabling models to explicitly capture key aspects of helpfulness, safety and relevance. The proposed hybrid approach yields consistent improvements across all models, achieving up to 0.84 ROC AUC and significantly higher pairwise accuracy, with DeBERTav3Large demonstrating the best performance. Beyond accuracy, we integrate SHAP and LIME to provide fine-grained interpretability, revealing that model decisions depend on contextualized safety and supportive framing rather than isolated keywords. We further analyze bias amplification, showing that while individual features have weak marginal effects, their interactions influence preference learning.