arXiv announced it will ban researchers for one year if it finds clear proof they did not verify AI large language model (LLM) generated content in their submissions, such as fabricated references or hidden LLM comments. The policy applies when moderators document the problem and the Section Chair confirms the evidence before imposing the penalty [1, 2, 3].
Thomas Dietterich, arXiv’s computer science section chair, said, "If a submission contains incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation, this means we can’t trust anything in the paper" [2]. Dietterich also emphasized authors "take full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated" [1].
Problematic AI outputs include hallucinated or fabricated references, meta-comments left by the LLM, plagiarized text, biased material, inappropriate language, errors, and misleading information [1, 2, 3]. The crackdown aims to stop proliferation of low-quality "AI slop" that undermines scientific reliability and threatens scientific integrity [1, 3].
After serving a one-year ban, authors must have subsequent arXiv submissions accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue before posting again [1, 2, 3]. Authors may appeal ban decisions [1, 2, 3].
The new enforcement was announced by Dietterich on May 14 or 15. TechCrunch and Yahoo Taiwan reported on the updated rules on May 16, noting it as part of broader efforts in academic publishing to ensure transparency and author accountability amid rising AI tool use [1, 2, 3].
