arxiv

This is a long time coming. I've been posting about the decline of arXiv's CS category for a long time now, and even had a few conversations with someone I know who works there about it. Personally, I think the slop started in 2018--prior to generative AI slop--when the CS category at arXiv began the unsustainable exponential growth in submissions that has continued till today. An increasing number of what amounted to corporate whitepapers and other marketing materials were being posted on arXiv to give them the appearance of scientific credibility. There was a fairly clear arXiv-to-Nature pipeline. Citation counts were pumped as some of the scientometric services count arXiv "articles" as citations, and some researchers adopted the bad scholarly habit of citing arXiv preprints instead of the final publication. It was and still is a mess. My understanding is that arXiv was meant as a place for people to put high-quality but pre-publication articles, but at least in the CS category it's drifted quite far from that.

I gather they've finally taken this measure because of the preponderance AI-generated slop, but with any luck these other issues will improve too. The arXiv press release states “Review/survey articles or position papers submitted to arXiv without this documentation will be likely to be rejected and not appear on arXiv” so it does sound like they are acknowledging the other problems and intend to enforce their rules more strictly in the future.

"arXiv says it will no longer accept Computer Science papers that are still under review due to the wave of AI-generated ones it has received."
From https://infosec.exchange/users/josephcox/statuses/115486903712973154

#arXiv #preprint #CS #spam #AISlop #AI #GenAI #GenerativeAI

Beware of academic "papers" about LLMs, especially on arXiv. The signal-to-noise ratio is alarmingly low, especially relative to other subdisciplines of computer science: https://wandering.shop/@xgranade/114055293092825449

#AI #GenAI #LLM #AcademicPublishing #arXiv #ComputerScience

As an experiment, I directed a coding agent to sort through recent #arXiv posts for similarity in topic or keywords to my own research papers, with additional weighting for papers authored by my former collaborators or mentees (such papers are marked with a star in the lists provided below). I also asked the agent to assess the degree of AI assistance in each paper using robot emojis, with one emoji denoting minor assistance, two denoting major assistance, and three denoting near-total automation. (A computer emoji is also used to indicate more traditional computer assistance, e.g., in numerics.) The lists produced by the agent for the months of July and of August respectively are provided below. (It is important to stress that the AI-generated rankings here are based on proximity to my own interests, and should not be regarded as an absolute ranking of importance of the result.)

The generation of these listings is highly unscientific and tailored to my own personal preferences (and there was at least one annotation error, in that the author Van Khu Vu was confused with my collaborator Van Ha Vu), but it does indicate to me the increasing adoption of AI assistance, at least in my own fields of interest.

New paper on #Arxiv and my first foray into the field of #OpticalComputing (and #MachineLearning , the good one, not LLMs&co).

We are very used to digital universal (i.e. Turing complete) computers, but it isn't written anywhere that all computation must be digital. Actually, analog computers have a long and glorious history. The advent of transistors meant that digital computers won the war and became ubiquitous, but if instead of a universal machine you want something that does exactly one thing, but very fast and very efficiently, analog systems are often the way to go.

In particular it is tempting to do computation with light. Light is extremely good at transmitting information, we have excellent technology for both generating and detecting light, and we are VERY good at manipulating it. Furthermore light is FAST, and if you do things correctly losses are low.

And if there is something that would benefit from being made massively parallel, fast, and with limited energy consumption it is machine learning. Now, not all forms of machine learning suit light well. People try to make deep neural networks using light, but I am not convinced that this approach has legs. A less popular approach to machine learning that is a perfect fit for light and optics is "reservoir computing", where you have a large recurring network where all the weights (i.e. how strong the connections between the nodes are) are fixed, and you only train a single linear layer (effectively you just do a linear regression) at the output of the network.

1/2

https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02733