It seems a good idea to ban cheating, but how hard is it, especially in new reasoning/agents contexts to validate references?

The deeper question is whether legitimate AI generated results are allowed or not? Test - In the extreme - think proof of Riemann Hypothesis autonomously generated (end to end) formally proven - is it allowed or not?

This is not about banning cheating, it’s about banning inaccurate information.

You don’t need to solve everything, catching a few thousand non existent citations with such a policy is on its own a net benefit.

It is allowed as long as it’s verified.

The thread specifically points out that if authors can’t be arsed to simply proofread their text the rest can not be trusted either.

It’s a simple heuristic against low quality submissions, not an anti-ai measure.

If you use AI correctly, nobody should be able to tell that it was used at all.

There already exists multiple tools for automatically verifying references. This measure will likely only filter out the laziest and most incompetent of AI slop submissions. It's a very modest raising of the bar, but comes at zero cost to honest researchers.

I expect arXiv will still have problems with slop submissions but, at least, their references should actually exist going forward.

It isn't "cheating" they're concerned with, it's sloppiness. This dictum isn't some sort of AI ban, but instead simply that if there is evidence that it was so low effort that the work includes such blatant problems, it's just adding noise.

> think proof of Riemann Hypothesis autonomously generated (end to end) formally proven - is it allowed or not?

Sorry to be rude, but this seems like a dumb question. I want science to progress. A primary purpose of these journals is to progress science. A full proof of the Riemann Hypothesis progresses science. I don't care how it was produced, if Hitler is coauthor, etc, I just care that it is correct. Whether the authors should be rewarded for whatever methods they used can be a separate question.