- arXiv will impose a 1-year submission ban on authors who submit AI-generated papers with hallucinated references or LLM artifacts
- The penalty is one-strike: future submissions must pass peer review at a reputable venue before appearing on arXiv
- CS section chair Thomas Dietterich announced the enforcement on Thursday, clarifying existing policy rather than creating new rules
The preprint server that has defined how physics, math, and computer science research circulates is finally hitting back. TechCrunch reports that arXiv will ban authors for a full year if their submissions contain what it calls “incontrovertible evidence” of unchecked LLM output—hallucinated references, LLM meta-comments like “fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments,” or prompt residue left in published text.
Thomas Dietterich, chair of arXiv’s computer science section and an emeritus professor at Oregon State University, announced the enforcement on X Thursday. The policy is not new—arXiv has long required that submissions meet “appropriate standards of scholarly communication.” What’s new is the explicit penalty: a one-year ban, plus a permanent requirement that any future submissions first clear peer review at a reputable venue. Authors can appeal, and section chairs must confirm moderator flags before any ban takes effect.
Why Computer Science Got There First
The CS category on arXiv has been ground zero for AI slop. 404 Media reported that arXiv now receives hundreds of review articles every month in CS alone—many “little more than annotated bibliographies” generated by LLMs. Last November, arXiv stopped accepting CS review and position papers unless they had already been peer-reviewed. The new ban enforcement extends that crackdown from the paper type to the authors themselves.
The crackdown echoes a broader pattern. Law firm Sullivan & Cromwell apologized to a federal judge last month after filing contained AI-hallucinated case citations. Fabricated references are rising across biomedical research too, per TechCrunch. The difference is that arXiv—where preprints often circulate months before journal publication—sits upstream of peer review, making it the earliest line of defense.
Dietterich acknowledged concerns about AI detection reliability and potential institutional bias, noting that moderators will rely on “incontrovertible evidence” rather than probabilistic classifiers. Whether that standard holds at scale remains to be seen. The ban takes effect immediately.
FAQ
Does arXiv ban all AI-assisted writing?
No. Authors can use LLMs as tools, but they remain responsible for all content—hallucinated references, plagiarized passages, and LLM artifacts included.
What counts as “incontrovertible evidence” of AI slop?
Hallucinated citations, LLM prompt responses left in text (e.g., “here is a 200-word summary”), and meta-comments instructing authors to fill in real data.
Can banned authors appeal?
Yes. ArXiv’s moderation system includes an appeal process. Section chairs must confirm moderator flags before any ban is imposed.
[Editor’s note: This article was updated on May 17, 2026 to correct the source attribution for the claim about fabricated references in biomedical research. Original text attributed this to Cybernews; corrected to TechCrunch, which is the source that discusses biomedical research in its coverage.]