arXiv moderator Thomas Dietterich announced a one-year submission ban for authors whose papers contain unmistakable signs of unedited LLM output, including fabricated citations and stray chatbot instructions left in the manuscript. He laid out the penalty in an X thread on May 14, posting as a moderator for arXiv's cs.LG section.
What gets you banned
AI assistance itself remains fine. Failing to read what the AI wrote is the new violation. Dietterich's examples sound invented until you remember they keep showing up at NeurIPS: hallucinated references to papers that don't exist, and untouched chatbot meta-comments like "here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?" or "the data in this table is illustrative, fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments." Those second-category errors are the embarrassing ones. They mean the author let an LLM draft a section and then submitted without scrolling through it.
arXiv's Code of Conduct already places full responsibility on authors regardless of how the content was produced. The new piece is what happens when authors blow that off.
The second penalty is the rough one
A one-year ban is steep on its own. What follows is harsher: any future arXiv submissions from the banned author must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue. For CS researchers, this breaks the standard workflow. Papers normally hit arXiv the same week they're submitted to a conference. Waiting for peer review can mean watching someone else publish first on the same idea.
One round of AI sloppiness, in other words, and you're effectively booted from preprint-first culture.
Is it actually in effect?
Here's the awkward part. Hacker News commenters spotted that nothing matching Dietterich's tweets appears on arXiv's published policy pages. A reader on the Hacker News thread pointed out that info.arxiv.org doesn't list the one-year ban anywhere. So either the rule is in force but not yet documented, or it's a moderator's reading of existing code-of-conduct authority announced via a Twitter thread. arXiv hasn't published a separate post on the ban.
What is documented is the October 2025 move that preceded this one. A blog post announced that CS review articles and position papers now need prior peer-review acceptance to be considered. Same problem, different solution. Dietterich was blunt about the reason at the time: too many LLM-assisted survey papers, not enough moderators to triage them.
The harder question
Hallucinated citations in academic work have climbed sharply since ChatGPT's release, with multiple analyses tracking fabricated references in CS preprints. Whether arXiv moderators can reliably distinguish "incontrovertible evidence" of unchecked output from a single overlooked typo is the question that will define how this lands. A solid paper with one stray prompt in the appendix probably shouldn't earn the same year-long ban as a manuscript with a fabricated bibliography. Dietterich hasn't drawn that line publicly.
The policy operates through arXiv's existing moderation process. No timeline has been given for codifying it on the policy pages.
