[TYPES] AI-generated conference submissions

[Anitha Gollamudi]

I would like to call out a specific point, also echoed by Klaus. AI tools
can specifically help non-native English speakers write better narratives.
It takes multiple (re-) tries to present/finesse a technically correct
idea---both with the grammar and narrative. I am wondering if the planned
AI detection tools are aimed to flag such instances as well? I understand
it is a grey area, but I am also afraid that it could end up being a
counter-productive policy.

-Anitha

On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 at 11:22, Jonathan Aldrich <jonathan.aldrich at cs.cmu.edu>
wrote:

> [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list 
> ]
>
> Penalties for ACM policy violations are covered here:
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/penalties-for-publication-violations__;!!IBzWLUs!Sjaz8owhfEo9XGIOjdHvYlt4K1i0NrcU2OJwhOfFW-zvlNaateRbntcrFSLLEBufF-BToem_Mxww-uzmXyT4YGGe2ItcCGK8yGCGee6rNw$
>
> Regarding application to cases of AI use, I'd like to echo Mae's call for
> empathy and grace, particularly in cases that might involve students. A lot
> of violations are likely unintentional in this context. ACM definitely
> tries to take these factors into consideration in addressing ethics and
> plagiarism cases.  A harmless use of AI by a student who neglects to
> acknowledge AI use, perhaps because they were unaware of the policy, might
> receive only a warning ("Level I") and if already published, a corrigendum
> to the paper acknowledging the AI use.
>
> If the AI use compromises the integrity of the paper the paper would of
> course be rejected or, if already published, retracted ("Level II").  When
> caught during reviewing, these kinds of violations can be handled by
> conference chairs (e.g. with the approach Mae suggests), with notification
> to ACM's Ethics and Plagiarism committee.  I remember how big of a deal
> even a single paper rejection was to me as a student; I am sure that this
> level of action is enough to motivate care and compliance with disclosure
> requirements for the vast majority of our community.
>
> The penalties do escalate according to the context.  Careless use by
> someone who should know better (typically more senior researchers) might be
> a Level III violation, with a 1-year publication/participation ban; if it
> was intentional or repeated it would be a 2 year ban (Level IV), and if it
> is severe, intentional, and repeated it would be Level V (5 year ban).  In
> practice, bans of 5 years, or more (for stacked Level V penalties) are
> typically for things like reviewing rings, severe research misconduct,
> severe harassment or abuse in ACM-relevant contexts--in which case it is of
> course very well justified.  Without revealing details of confidential
> cases, scandals that make the news are likely to be at this level of
> severity (to be clear, "makes the news" is not among our criteria--there's
> correlation here, not causation).  Keep in mind that a 5 year ban is
> already career-ending or at least career-altering for someone whose work
> centers on publishing in ACM venues.
>
> The ACM spends a lot of volunteer time and money (some of these involve
> in-depth investigations and lawyers) on such issues, and when they come to
> the publications board, the conversations involve careful and substantive
> deliberation, with the typical result a strong consensus on the action
> taken. Having been a part of the process, I can say while it is imperfect,
> costly, and sometimes slow, it is generally fair and its outcomes achieve a
> large measure of justice and help to protect our community.
>
> Best,
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 3:30 AM Drossopoulou, Sophia <
> s.drossopoulou at imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > What happens to authors when such an AI generated paper is encountered? I
> > would have thought that if ACM had a strict policy, eg no papers
> published
> > for the next 5 years, then the problem would be significantly reduced
> >
> >       Sophia
> > ———•••———
> > Sent from mobile phone, hence succinct
> >
> > > On 17 Mar 2026, at 03:54, Jonathan Aldrich <
> jonathan.aldrich at cs.cmu.edu>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > CAUTION: This message came from outside Imperial. Do not click links
> or
> > open attachments unless you recognise the sender and were expecting this
> > email.
> > >
> > >
> > > [ The Types Forum,
> > http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list   ]
> > >
> > > Ugh, I have been fortunate enough not to encounter that in my
> reviewing.
> > > But I hear it is very common in other subfields so it was probably
> just a
> > > matter of time before it got to PL.
> > >
> > > If this is an ACM conference, our policies already require disclosing
> the
> > > use of AI for anything beyond grammar-checking-style applications:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/new-acm-policy-on-authorship__;!!IBzWLUs!RC4FcA0-IHc55AxdQMuWNHIfsDdNqAlbvh2m7TpSk7wCaTZl7_iQsMZfqu-oMv768kp_7vwINcEPMtugQGMRVD8jcVueMjwevkEYu5ZLnw$
> > >
> > > If there are any non-ACM PL conferences that don't have this policy, I
> > > would encourage them to adopt it.
> > >
> > > ACM is evaluating tools that can (heuristically) detect AI use, as well
> > as
> > > tools that can identify hallucinated references.  We should start to
> see
> > > deployment of these within the next year--if anyone on this list is an
> > ACM
> > > PC chair and wants to do an early trial, let me know and I can connect
> > you
> > > with people who may be able to arrange that.  It's of course important
> to
> > > have a human verify any tool reports based on heuristics as they may be
> > > incorrect, but the point is that they can save time in identifying
> > problems.
> > >
> > > Regarding reviewing workload, it's very unfortunate.  The tools
> mentioned
> > > above will eventually help some.  In the meantime, it's my view that
> once
> > > you determine that a paper is so flawed it cannot be accepted,
> especially
> > > if that flaw involves misconduct such as undisclosed AI use or
> otherwise
> > > makes the paper very difficult to read, it's reasonable for the
> reviewer
> > to
> > > stop reading and return a review based on the portion they read.  Of
> > > course, I would mention the situation to the PC chair to make sure they
> > are
> > > OK with this; most probably are.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 9:50 PM Stephanie Balzer <
> > stephanie.balzer at gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [ The Types Forum,
> > http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list 
> > >> ]
> > >>
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> I have now been numerous times on the receiving end on a what it
> appears
> > >> to me (almost) entirely AI-generated conference submissions that I was
> > >> assigned to review.  Of course I have no proof, but to me it was
> pretty
> > >> obvious.  The submissions in question consist of an amalgamation of
> > >> meaningful words (sometimes not entirely from the context the paper
> > >> ought to be about), are generally well written, although meaningless,
> > >> and even come backed up with some rules with horizontal lines and
> proof
> > >> sketches (sometimes from various contexts).  That catch, however, is
> > >> that the whole composition doesn't make sense.
> > >>
> > >> What are we going to do about this as a community?
> > >>
> > >> I have numerous concerns here: My immediate concern is that I do not
> > >> like to spend my time on such submissions.  Even though it's quite
> > >> obvious immediately that the paper is meaningless, it still takes some
> > >> time to make sure and justify the verdict.  Another concern I have is
> > >> the risk that, under time pressure, no due diligence is done, and we
> may
> > >> end up accepting such a paper.
> > >>
> > >> As a first step we may require authors to declare whether AI was used
> in
> > >> preparing their submission and what for and we delimit what uses are
> > >> permitted.
> > >>
> > >> Looking forward to your thoughts,
> > >>
> > >> Stephanie
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>