ArXiv Bans Authors of Questionable AI Papers

ArXiv, a widely used preprint platform for researchers, has decided to take strict measures to combat the proliferation of articles containing dubious AI-generated content. This initiative aims to maintain the quality and integrity of academic publications.

Thomas Dietterich, who chairs the computer science section of ArXiv, announced that authors whose articles provide irrefutable evidence of unverified results generated by language models (LLMs) will be banned from the platform for one year. This decision is part of a broader effort to reduce the number of submissions containing errors such as hallucinated references or meta-comments left by LLMs.

Dietterich clarified on the social network X that ArXiv's Code of Conduct requires each author to take full responsibility for the content of their article, regardless of how that content was generated. If generative AI tools produce errors, plagiarized or biased content, or incorrect references, and these elements are included in a scientific article, it is the authors' responsibility to account for them.

In the event of a failure to meet these requirements, authors will not only be banned for a year, but their future submissions must also be accepted in a reputable peer-reviewed publication venue before being submitted to ArXiv. This measure aims to ensure that the content published on the platform meets rigorous academic standards.

Irrefutable evidence that may lead to a ban includes hallucinated references or explicit meta-comments from LLMs, such as indications of summaries or fictitious data tables. However, authors have the option to appeal ban decisions. Dietterich explained that this policy will only apply in cases where irrefutable evidence is present, and a moderator must first document the issue, followed by confirmation from the section chair before the sanction is imposed.

Last year, ArXiv had already updated its policies to limit AI-generated content. The platform now only allows the publication of review articles and position papers in computer science if they have been peer-reviewed and accepted at a conference or journal. This decision was motivated by the increase in content production by large language models, often reduced to mere annotated bibliographies without genuine discussion of open research issues.