[TYPES] AI-generated conference submissions

[Jonathan Aldrich]

AI detection tools are definitely imperfect; they can often be helpful but
as many who have used them for detecting AI in grading will know, they can
have both false negatives and false positives.  Ironically they are more
likely to produce false positive warnings for text written by non-native
English speakers (not using AI).

ACM already allows AI for grammar fixes, without disclosure.  Disclosure
would be required for AI helping to write narratives, but there is no
stigma attached as long as the final text is of high quality.

In response to Klaus's point, I should say that this was actually discussed
today at a Publications Board meeting--since my prior replies in this
thread!  It seems that while perhaps still unusual in PL, AI use is
becoming ubiquitous (and is largely undisclosed) in the broader context of
ACM publications.  There is debate about whether there is any point in
continuing to mandate disclosure.  In particular, the Publications Ethics
and Plagiarism committee spends a high and increasing amount of time
investigating ethical issues; I get the sense they would like to focus
their limited time on cases involving e.g. research integrity (perhaps due
to AI use) rather than lack of disclosure which is otherwise harmless.

If there are additional comments or suggestions on this, I'd like to hear
them, and will pass them on to the Publications Board.  As Alcides
mentions, even if we stop requiring disclosure of AI use, we would
definitely continue to hold authors fully responsible for the integrity of
their publications; "this was hallucinated by AI" will never be an
acceptable excuse.

Jonathan


On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 11:33 AM Anitha Gollamudi <
anitha.gollamudi at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>>
>