Vasudev Majhi

Driven by surging submission volumes, scientific peer review has catalyzed two parallel trends: individual over-reliance on LLMs and institutional AI-powered assessment systems. This study investigates the robustness of "LLM-as-a-Judge" systems to adversarial PDF manipulation via invisible text injections and layout aware encoding attacks. We specifically target the distinct incentive of flipping "Reject" decisions to "Accept," a vulnerability that fundamentally compromises scientific integrity. To measure this, we introduce the Weighted Adversarial Vulnerability Score (WAVS), a novel metric that quantifies susceptibility by weighting score inflation against the severity of decision shifts relative to ground truth. We adapt 15 domain-specific attack strategies, ranging from semantic persuasion to cognitive obfuscation, and evaluate them across 13 diverse language models (including GPT-5 and DeepSeek) using a curated dataset of 200 official and real-world accepted and rejected submissions (e.g., ICLR OpenReview). Our results demonstrate that obfuscation techniques like "Maximum Mark Magyk" and "Symbolic Masking & Context Redirection" successfully manipulate scores, achieving decision flip rates of up to 86.26% in open-source models, while exposing distinct "reasoning traps" in proprietary systems. We release our complete dataset and injection framework to facilitate further research on the topic (https://anonymous.4open.sciencer/llm-jailbreak-FC9E/).

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automatic judges for code evaluation is becoming increasingly prevalent in academic environments. But their reliability can be compromised by students who may employ adversarial prompting strategies in order to induce misgrading and secure undeserved academic advantages. In this paper, we present the first large-scale study of jailbreaking LLM-based automated code evaluators in academic context. Our contributions are: (i) We systematically adapt 20+ jailbreaking strategies for jailbreaking AI code evaluators in the academic context, defining a new class of attacks termed academic jailbreaking. (ii) We release a poisoned dataset of 25K adversarial student submissions, specifically designed for the academic code-evaluation setting, sourced from diverse real-world coursework and paired with rubrics and human-graded references, and (iii) In order to capture the multidimensional impact of academic jailbreaking, we systematically adapt and define three jailbreaking metrics (Jailbreak Success Rate, Score Inflation, and Harmfulness). (iv) We comprehensively evalulate the academic jailbreaking attacks using six LLMs. We find that these models exhibit significant vulnerability, particularly to persuasive and role-play-based attacks (up to 97% JSR). Our adversarial dataset and benchmark suite lay the groundwork for next-generation robust LLM-based evaluators in academic code assessment.

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.