Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Great move by arXiv—clear standards for reviews and position papers are crucial in fast-moving areas like multi-agent systems and agentic LLMs. Requiring machine-readable metadata (type=review/position, inclusion criteria, benchmark coverage, code/data links) and consistent cross-listing (cs.AI/cs.MA) would help readers and tools filter claims, especially in distributed/parallel agentic AI where evaluation is fragile. A standardized “Survey”/“Position” tag plus a brief reproducibility checklist would set expectations without stifling early ideas.
    by whatpeoplewant
  • i would like to understand what people get, or think they get, out of putting a completely AI-generated survey paper on arXiv.

    Even if AI writes the paper for you, it's still kind of a pain in the ass to go through the submission process, get the LaTeX to compile on their servers, etc., there is a small cost to you. Why do this?

    by currymj
  • The Tragedy of the Commons, updated for LLMs. Part #975 in a continuing series.

    These things will ruin everything good, and that is before we even start talking about audio or video.

    by exasperaited
  • The HN submission title is incorrect.

    > Before being considered for submission to arXiv’s CS category, review articles and position papers must now be accepted at a journal or a conference and complete successful peer review.

    Edit: original title was "arXiv No Longer Accepts Computer Science Position or Review Papers Due to LLMs"

    by thomascountz
  • it's clearly not sutainable to have the main website hosting CS articles not having any reviews or restrictions. (Except for the initial invite system) There were 26k submission in october: https://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions

    Asking for a small amount of money would probably help. Issue with requiring peer reviewed journals or conferences is the severe lag, takes a long time and part of the advantage of arxiv was that you could have the paper instantly as a preprint. Also these conferences and journals are also receiving enormous quantities of submissions (29.000 for AAAI) so we are just pushing the problem.

    by DalasNoin
  • Maybe it's time for a reputation system. E.g. every author publishes a public PGP key along with their work. Not sure about the details but this is about CS, so I'm sure they will figure something out.
    by amelius
  • So what they no longer accept is preprints (or rejects…) It’s of course a pretty big deal given that arXiv is all about preprints. And an accepted journal paper presumably cannot be submitted to arXiv anyway unless it’s an open journal.
    by Sharlin
  • There is a general problem with rewarding people for the volume of stuff they create, rather than the quality.

    If you incentivize researchers to publish papers, individuals will find ways to game the system, meeting the minimum quality bar, while taking the least effort to create the most papers and thereby receive the greatest reward.

    Similarly, if you reward content creators based on views, you will get view maximization behaviors. If you reward ad placement based on impressions, you will see gaming for impressions.

    Bad metrics or bad rewards cause bad behavior.

    We see this over and over because the reward issuers are designing systems to optimize for their upstream metrics.

    Put differently, the online world is optimized for algorithms, not humans.

    by efitz

Explore Birbla archives