Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 242 posts

Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references

#201

Post by purerandomness »

____mr____ wrote: post #194
btown wrote: post #4

> 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…

> subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue. Isn't the whole point of arxiv to be somewhere you post your low-reviewed/unpublished/prepublished papers? doesnt this somewhat defeat the point and basically means a lifetime ban?

If it isn't, it absolutely should be.

The penalty cannot be high enough.

Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references

#203

Post by satiric »

ktallett wrote: post #146
small_scombrus wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are you writing papers and not having actually read the source you took the material from? They're explicitly not writing papers. The fake citations are created and inserted by the LLM

They are still purposely writing a paper, whether that is with the help of an LLM or not. They are instructing the LLM to do the task of finding citations. It's no difference to googling for a paper that explains a specific point. You would still double check Google's output.

So you just write whatever you want, then find a source for it later? I don't think you understand how this is supposed to work

Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references

#204

Post by nradov »

small_scombrus wrote: post #138
nomel wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The frontier LLMs are getting pretty good at checking this sort of thing. No, this is career ending high stakes. it requires old school "actually check a record of reality" type methods, like a database query or http get to one of the many services that hold this info.

I think they're saying that frontier LLMs may be usable to spot citations that are correct by shape (a real citation) but incorrect by usage (unrelated to the text) I kind of hate the idea, but you probably could do a lazy LLM check of every paper and every citation and have it flag possible wrong (second sense) citations for human review But you'd need a LOT of tokens and a LOT of human-hours

Right, that's what I'm saying. The LLM can identify and prioritize possible cases of academic fraud (or serious incompetence) for human review. As the cost of tokens drops it will become practical to go back and do AI reviews of every scholarly journal article ever written.

Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references

#205

Post by lou1306 »

emil-lp wrote: post #186
lou1306 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be a coauthor on a preprint that you have not submitted, you have to actively "claim" it (using a password given to the author who submitted). It's on you to double-check before claiming.

Is that your definition or theirs? I can't see that in the code of conduct.

I don't think they mention it in the CoC, but anyone can upload an ArXiv preprint listing literally anybody else as a coauthor, so it is only logical that only "confirmed" coauthors should be affected.

Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references

#206

Post by kordlessagain »

btown wrote: post #4

> 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…

It's a gatekeepers dream, for sure.

Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references

#208

Post by dan-g »

kordlessagain wrote: post #206
btown wrote: post #4

> 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…

It's a gatekeepers dream, for sure.

Sorry maybe I’m missing something, but how is this gatekeeping?

Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references

#209

Post by bluecheese452 »

wallst07 wrote: post #183
casey2 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even acts that would be criminal in the US occur less in China due to properly enforced fines. Nobody does things assuming they will get caught unless there is a high likelihood of getting caught. Research and practice has shown that the strongest deterrent is certainty.

Impact = Risk * Probability Occurrence. If the fine is high enough (risk) , but probability low, people will not do the thing because of the impact on them.

This is not true. People are not ev maximizing bots.

Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references

#210

Post by bigfishrunning »

kordlessagain wrote: post #206
btown wrote: post #4

> 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…

It's a gatekeepers dream, for sure.

I feel like requiring that your cited references are real is a pretty low bar
Post reply on HN