arXiv Bans Authors for One Year After LLM Hallucinated References and Unverified Results

arXiv will ban authors for one year if a submission contains “incontrovertible evidence” that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation, and the penalty is followed by a requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions be accepted at “a reputable peer-reviewed venue.”

“ArXiv, the open-access repository of preprint academic research, will ban authors of papers for a year if they submit obviously AI-generated work”

404 Media

Thomas Dietterich, chair of arXiv’s computer science section, said the policy targets cases where AI output is included in scientific works without verification, and he framed the rule as an accountability measure for authors.

404 Media

The sanctions are triggered by examples of “hallucinated references” and “meta-comments from the LLM,” including a prompt-style line that reads “Here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?”

Dietterich also tied the enforcement to arXiv’s moderation standards, saying “Submissions to arXiv must comply with appropriate standards of scholarly communication in form, including appropriate and carefully prepared sections, figures, tables, references, etc.”

Dietterich told 404Media that “our internal process requires first a moderator to document the problem and then for the Section Chair to confirm before imposing the penalty,” describing a documented-and-confirmed workflow before bans are applied.

He also said the policy applies only “to cases of incontrovertible evidence,” and he warned that if such evidence exists, “this means we can’t trust anything in the paper.”

Ars Technica

The Verge reported that Dietterich’s examples of incontrovertible evidence include “meta-comments from the LLM” such as “the data in this table is illustrative, fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments.”

PCMag Middle East quoted Dietterich’s framing of the rule as a responsibility standard, saying “Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your name as an author of a paper, each author takes full responsibility for all its contents.”

ArXiv’s enforcement is designed to reduce “AI slop” by making it harder to use the repository when a submission includes “incontrovertible evidence” of unchecked LLM output, and the consequence is a “1-year ban from arXiv” plus a peer-reviewed acceptance requirement.

“In the world of academic preprints, arXiv has long been the go-to platform for researchers to share work quickly”

Economist Writing Every Day

Mashable described the same one-year ban for authors who submit “obviously AI-generated work,” and it said the return path requires submitting to a “reputable peer-reviewed review venue” before regaining access to arXiv.

In addition to the ban, Dietterich’s clarified penalties emphasize that if generative AI tools generate “inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content,” and that output is included, “it is the responsibility of the author(s).”

heise online reported that arXiv is reversing its previous procedure by imposing an immediate one-year ban on first offense for AI violations, and it said that after being caught, further work will be published only if it has already appeared in another reputable scientific medium or has been accepted for a presentation at a corresponding conference.