New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references

imenani

https://xcancel.com/tdietterich/status/2055000956144935055

bigfishrunning

Good; academic literature is in crisis because of all of the slop. Forcing some consequences on easily-detectable hallucinations can only be a good thing

btown

> The penalty is a 1-year ban from arXiv followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue. This is incredibly good for science. arXiv is free, but it's a privilege not a right! I'm not seeing this clearly listed on https://info.arxiv.org/help/policies/index.html so it's possible this is planned but not live yet - or perhaps I'm not digging deeply enough? As a certain doctor once said: the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret!

random3

It seems a good idea to ban cheating, but how hard is it, especially in new reasoning/agents contexts to validate references? The deeper question is whether legitimate AI generated results are allowed or not? Test - In the extreme - think proof of Riemann Hypothesis autonomously generated (end to end) formally proven - is it allowed or not?

squirrelon

Had a colleague submit a paper with literal AI slop left in the text, got hit with a nasty revision request. Check your drafts before you submit, people. The reviewers will find it.

MinimalAction

There needs be to a careful vetting before such adverse actions. If somebody includes a name and pushed it without express permission, does everyone get the ban? I agree that implemented the right way, this is good.

noobermin

Seeing the usual LLM hypers angry replying to this on twitter is such a tell. Just like the comments on the LLM poisoning articles, some people just can't accept that some people don't like LLMs and get upset when you put any amount of hindrance to their rapid acceptance.

jszymborski

Should be more harsh in my opinion.

rgmerk

Good. If it’s not worth your time to check the output of your LLM carefully, it’s not worth my time to read it.

nullc

It's been pretty eye opening watching Craig Wright (of bitcoin fakery fame) flooding out LLM generated 'academic' papers and even having some of them accepted. He's toast if SSRN were to adopt a similar policy.

mks_shuffle

While this is certainly a welcome step, I hope there is more work done to fix the underlying problem of easily creating correct BibTeX entries for the cited papers. Citations for any given paper can come from a wide range of journals with various publishers, conferences, and preprints. The same paper can be available from multiple sources with varying details, e.g. arXiv and the conference website. Tools like Zotero have certainly made it significantly easier to extract citations from webpages of publication, but I still find issues with the extracted BibTeX details. While author names and titles are often extracted correctly, I still have to manually ensure that details like publication venue, year, volume number, page number, URL, etc. are extracted correctly and also shown correctly in LaTeX format. Different publications can use different citation styles. This can unfortunately lead to taking shortcuts with AI-generated citation data due to the lack of an easy and unified approach to extract consistent citation data. I am not sure whether hallucinated citations are being generated in the main manuscript or in a separate BibTeX file, so I may be a bit off in my understanding.

jimmygrapes

As of yet no comments here seem to address the "reputable" condition. Reputable review is based on what criteria?

ElenaDaibunny

how will they detect hallucinated refs at scale? Manual spot checks? Automated DOI verification? The policy seems right but enforcement is the hard part.

druub

What are reasonable alternatives to arXiv? It has become increasinbgly slow. Techrxiv?

az226

Next, for AI papers, a reproducibility requirement. So much code and details are fudged and paper's cannot be reproduced. Ran the training with some other config, or other data, etc. to make their mechanism or intervention seem better.