[TYPES] AI-generated conference submissions

[Neel Krishnaswami]

Hi,

ACM policy specifically permits the use of grammar checking, though for me reading the kinds of English non-native-English scientists write is one of the pleasures of reading scientific papers. (It is like a little peek into another country.)

But inventing the scientific narrative is surely part of the responsibility of the scientist? 

Best,
Neel

On Tue, 17 Mar 2026, at 3:33 PM, Anitha Gollamudi wrote:
> [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list  ]
> 
> 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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>