The Compliance Paradox: Semantic-Instruction Decoupling in Automated Academic Code Evaluation

The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into educational assessment rests on the unverified assumption that instruction following capability translates directly to objective adjudication. We demonstrate that this assumption is fundamentally flawed. Instead of evaluating code quality, models frequently decouple from the submission's logic to satisfy hidden directives, a systemic vulnerability we term the Compliance Paradox, where models fine-tuned for extreme helpfulness are vulnerable to adversarial manipulation. To expose this, we introduce the Semantic-Preserving Adversarial Code Injection (SPACI) Framework and the Abstract Syntax Tree-Aware Semantic Injection Protocol (AST-ASIP). These methods exploit the Syntax-Semantics Gap by embedding adversarial directives into syntactically inert regions (trivia nodes) of the Abstract Syntax Tree. Through a large-scale evaluation of 9 SOTA models across 25,000 submissions in Python, C, C++, and Java, we reveal catastrophic failure rates (>95%) in high-capacity open-weights models like DeepSeek-V3, which systematically prioritize hidden formatting constraints over code correctness. We quantify this failure using our novel tripartite framework measuring Decoupling Probability, Score Divergence, and Pedagogical Severity to demonstrate the widespread "False Certification" of functionally broken code. Our findings suggest that current alignment paradigms create a "Trojan" vulnerability in automated grading, necessitating a shift from standard RLHF toward domain-specific Adjudicative Robustness, where models are conditioned to prioritize evidence over instruction compliance. We release our complete dataset and injection framework to facilitate further research on the topic.

When Reject Turns into Accept: Quantifying the Vulnerability of LLM-Based Scientific Reviewers to Indirect Prompt Injection

The landscape of scientific peer review is rapidly evolving with the integration of Large Language Models (LLMs). This shift is driven by two parallel trends: the widespread individual adoption of LLMs by reviewers to manage workload (the "Lazy Reviewer" hypothesis) and the formal institutional deployment of AI-powered assessment systems by conferences like AAAI and Stanford's Agents4Science. This study investigates the robustness of these "LLM-as-a-Judge" systems (both illicit and sanctioned) to adversarial PDF manipulation. Unlike general jailbreaks, we focus on a distinct incentive: flipping "Reject" decisions to "Accept," for which we develop a novel evaluation metric which we term as WAVS (Weighted Adversarial Vulnerability Score). We curated a dataset of 200 scientific papers and adapted 15 domain-specific attack strategies to this task, evaluating them across 13 Language Models, including GPT-5, Claude Haiku, and DeepSeek. Our results demonstrate that obfuscation strategies like "Maximum Mark Magyk" successfully manipulate scores, achieving alarming decision flip rates even in large-scale models. We will release our complete dataset and injection framework to facilitate more research on this topic.