arXiv is banning authors for a year if their paper contains fabricated citations. Not the tool that generated them. The author.

That is the right call.

The policy is blunt: submit a paper with AI-hallucinated references -- citations to papers that do not exist -- and you lose submission rights for twelve months. When that year is up, every future submission must have passed peer review at a recognized venue before it can go on arXiv. That second part is the real consequence. arXiv's preprint-first model is how most ML and CS research moves fast. Being locked out of that, permanently subject to a peer-review gate, is a significant career penalty.

The policy statement is worth quoting directly: "By signing your name as an author of a paper, each author takes full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated."

Irrespective of how the contents were generated. There is no "the LLM did it" clause.

The numbers are not abstract

In 2023, roughly 1 in 2,828 papers on arXiv contained fabricated references. In early 2026, that figure is approximately 1 in 277. That is a tenfold increase in three years, tracking almost exactly with the adoption curve of AI writing tools.

At NeurIPS 2025, GPTZero identified over 100 hallucinated citations across 53 accepted papers -- papers that had cleared review by at least three human reviewers each. A Lancet study covering more than 2 million papers found roughly 4,000 fabricated citations across 2,800 papers in the sample.

This is not a tail-risk problem. It is a systemic one.

Why blaming the model is not a defense

There is a version of this conversation where researchers argue that LLMs generating false citations is a tooling failure, not an author failure. That argument does not survive contact with what authorship actually means.

When you submit a paper, you are asserting that the work is your own and that the claims it makes are accurate. A reference list is a set of claims. It asserts that specific papers exist, that they say what you imply they say, and that they support the argument you are making. Handing that responsibility to a language model and not checking the output is not a workflow optimization. It is negligence.

The fact that GPT-4 or whatever model you used hallucinated a citation is not a defense any more than "my spell checker changed it" is a defense for a factual error. You signed the paper. You own it.

Who this actually hits

Most researchers I talk to are not trying to commit fraud. They are using AI tools to speed up literature review and draft sections, and they are not doing a citation-by-citation verification pass before submission. That is the gap. The failure mode is not malice -- it is assuming the tool got it right.

arXiv is now making that assumption expensive.

The right response is not to stop using AI writing tools. It is to treat citation verification as a non-negotiable step before any submission, the same way you would run a spell check or proofread an abstract. Tools like Semantic Scholar, Elicit, and Connected Papers can help cross-reference citations against real databases. There is no excuse for submitting a reference list you have not spot-checked.

What comes next

The pressure this creates on AI writing tool developers is real. If your tool generates citations and those citations can be fabricated, you have a liability problem for your users. Expect to see citation grounding -- references tied to verified sources in real time rather than generated from model weights -- become a hard requirement rather than a premium feature.

For researchers: verify your reference lists before you submit. Every one of them. The model is not responsible for your paper. You are.

Sources: ByteIota: arXiv Bans Authors 1 Year for AI-Hallucinated Citations; 404 Media: arXiv Changes Rules After Getting Spammed With AI-Generated Research Papers; arXiv hallucination paper: 2602.05867