arXiv enforces 1-year ban for papers with LLM errors
Hallucinated references now cost authors a year on arXiv
arXiv, the central repository for preprint scientific papers, has announced a strict new penalty for authors who submit papers with obvious signs of unchecked AI generation. In a post on X, cs.LG moderator Thomas Dietterich clarified that the platform's Code of Conduct already holds authors fully responsible for all content, regardless of how it was created. If a submission contains incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not review LLM output—such as hallucinated references or meta-comments like “here is a 200-word summary; would you like me to make any changes?”—the paper will be rejected and the author banned from arXiv for one year.
After the ban period ends, the author must have their next submission accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue before it can appear on arXiv. This move targets the growing problem of papers polluted by sloppy use of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT or Claude. By setting a clear, enforceable penalty, arXiv hopes to deter researchers from submitting unchecked AI-generated content that undermines scientific rigor. Dietterich emphasized that any errors, from biased language to plagiarized passages, are the author's responsibility—even if an LLM produced them.
- 1-year ban from arXiv for papers with clear signs of unchecked LLM output, such as hallucinated references or AI meta-comments.
- After the ban, authors must have their next submission accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue before returning to arXiv.
- Authors are fully responsible for all content, including errors, biases, or plagiarism introduced by generative AI tools.
Why It Matters
Holds researchers accountable for AI-generated content, preserving trust in scientific publishing.