ArXiv imposes one-year bans on researchers uploading unverified AI-generated preprints
The platform’s computer science section chair confirms that authors leaving meta-comments or hallucinated references will face suspension and must secure peer-reviewed acceptance for future uploads.
ArXiv has introduced a strict new policy imposing a one-year ban on researchers who upload preprints containing incontrovertible evidence that they failed to verify results generated by large language models. The measure, confirmed by Thomas Dietterich, the computer science section chair, targets submissions that display clear signs of unchecked AI assistance, aiming to curb the proliferation of low-quality content often referred to as “AI slop.”
Under the updated guidelines, authors are held fully responsible for all content in their submissions, regardless of how it was generated. This aligns with ArXiv’s existing Code of Conduct, which states that signing a paper as an author makes the individual responsible for any inappropriate language, plagiarism, bias, errors, or misleading content produced by AI tools. The platform emphasises that if generative AI produces incorrect references or biased material, the author retains full accountability.
Dietterich identified specific indicators that constitute incontrovertible evidence of non-compliance. These include hallucinated references and residual meta-comments left by language models, such as prompts asking for summaries or notes indicating that data tables are illustrative placeholders requiring real experimental numbers. The presence of such elements suggests that the author did not check the results of the LLM generation, rendering the paper untrustworthy.
The enforcement process requires a moderator to first document the issue, followed by confirmation from the Section Chair before the ban is imposed. Authors retain the right to appeal these decisions. However, the penalty is severe: during the one-year suspension, any future submissions to ArXiv must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue. This requirement ensures that banned researchers cannot simply re-upload unvetted material to the platform.
This policy builds on previous updates implemented last year, which restricted computer science review articles and position papers to those already accepted at conferences or journals. ArXiv noted that the advent of large language models has made it relatively easy to generate such content on demand, leading to an influx of review articles that are little more than annotated bibliographies lacking substantial discussion of open research issues. The new measures aim to address this volume of low-quality submissions directly.
