Yanai Elazar
@yanai.bsky.social
Assistant Professor at Bar-Ilan University
https://yanaiela.github.io/
https://yanaiela.github.io/
March 17, 2026 at 10:14 AM
Or the resolution of the papers by the authors themselves!
www.bigpictureworkshop.com/2023/the-big... (link can be found on top)
www.bigpictureworkshop.com/2023/the-big... (link can be found on top)
Big Picture Workshop - The Big Picture 2023
News
www.bigpictureworkshop.com
March 16, 2026 at 6:37 PM
Or the resolution of the papers by the authors themselves!
www.bigpictureworkshop.com/2023/the-big... (link can be found on top)
www.bigpictureworkshop.com/2023/the-big... (link can be found on top)
ACL is not an AI conference seems like a big one
March 16, 2026 at 6:31 PM
ACL is not an AI conference seems like a big one
I've been playing hades 2 on my Mac recently, it's quite fun! Apparently it's coming to ps5 as well at some point. I think you'd appreciate the graphics
March 15, 2026 at 11:39 AM
I've been playing hades 2 on my Mac recently, it's quite fun! Apparently it's coming to ps5 as well at some point. I think you'd appreciate the graphics
But I guess this is where the "position" of our paper gets in. At least it wasn't rejected from arXiv 😂
January 31, 2026 at 8:10 PM
But I guess this is where the "position" of our paper gets in. At least it wasn't rejected from arXiv 😂
a) but not a reasonable one. there are many such papers, many good ones, and it's not like arXiv is this sanctuary of high-quality papers from the first place. I don't see why should we enforce this quasi appearance of quality suddenly.
b) I don't think this is true anymore.
b) I don't think this is true anymore.
January 31, 2026 at 8:06 PM
a) but not a reasonable one. there are many such papers, many good ones, and it's not like arXiv is this sanctuary of high-quality papers from the first place. I don't see why should we enforce this quasi appearance of quality suddenly.
b) I don't think this is true anymore.
b) I don't think this is true anymore.
correct! I combined them together here for brevity (some may say laziness. but in fact arXiv treats them the same, and so do we (at least we try, in our evaluations and instructions).
January 31, 2026 at 7:39 PM
correct! I combined them together here for brevity (some may say laziness. but in fact arXiv treats them the same, and so do we (at least we try, in our evaluations and instructions).
Please read the paper. Percentages are far from the only metric to look at.
January 31, 2026 at 7:38 PM
Please read the paper. Percentages are far from the only metric to look at.
No, we unfortunately couldn't get our hands on such data. But from our understanding such data (in the worse case scenario) shouldn't affect the trends we found in our results.
January 29, 2026 at 4:33 PM
No, we unfortunately couldn't get our hands on such data. But from our understanding such data (in the worse case scenario) shouldn't affect the trends we found in our results.
and lastly, a huge thanks to @pangram.com who provided us with credits to detect AI slop in scientific papers!
January 29, 2026 at 2:32 PM
and lastly, a huge thanks to @pangram.com who provided us with credits to detect AI slop in scientific papers!
It's been an absolute pleasure to work on this with @mariaa.bsky.social ! and I hope you find this interesting.
Feedback is welcome!
arxiv.org/abs/2601.17036
Feedback is welcome!
arxiv.org/abs/2601.17036
LLM-Generated or Human-Written? Comparing Review and Non-Review Papers on ArXiv
ArXiv recently prohibited the upload of unpublished review papers to its servers in the Computer Science domain, citing a high prevalence of LLM-generated content in these categories. However, this de...
arxiv.org
January 29, 2026 at 2:00 PM
It's been an absolute pleasure to work on this with @mariaa.bsky.social ! and I hope you find this interesting.
Feedback is welcome!
arxiv.org/abs/2601.17036
Feedback is welcome!
arxiv.org/abs/2601.17036
In addition, when considering different subfields, we find striking differences in how we classify 'position' papers, leading to huge differences in how this policy affects different CS subfields.
January 29, 2026 at 2:00 PM
In addition, when considering different subfields, we find striking differences in how we classify 'position' papers, leading to huge differences in how this policy affects different CS subfields.
However! when considering the number of papers from each type, we find there are significantly more non-review papers that are LLM-generated in all categories (cs and physics in the first tweet, math and stats here).
These results question the main motivation of this new policy.
These results question the main motivation of this new policy.
January 29, 2026 at 2:00 PM
However! when considering the number of papers from each type, we find there are significantly more non-review papers that are LLM-generated in all categories (cs and physics in the first tweet, math and stats here).
These results question the main motivation of this new policy.
These results question the main motivation of this new policy.
We then calculate the percentage of LLM-generated papers in each category, and find that indeed, 'position' papers have higher percentages of LLM-generated papers, across the past three years.
January 29, 2026 at 2:00 PM
We then calculate the percentage of LLM-generated papers in each category, and find that indeed, 'position' papers have higher percentages of LLM-generated papers, across the past three years.
We establish two classifiers that predict based on papers' abstracts* whether they are 'position' vs non-position papers, and whether they are LLM-generated, using two existing classifiers.
We also experiment with classifying the full papers, and reach similar conclusions.
We also experiment with classifying the full papers, and reach similar conclusions.
January 29, 2026 at 2:00 PM
We establish two classifiers that predict based on papers' abstracts* whether they are 'position' vs non-position papers, and whether they are LLM-generated, using two existing classifiers.
We also experiment with classifying the full papers, and reach similar conclusions.
We also experiment with classifying the full papers, and reach similar conclusions.
In this new paper (w/ @mariaa.bsky.social ) we study these questions, and try to provide some answers.
Overall, we find evidence that this decision does not make much sense, and that it should be reconsidered!
Overall, we find evidence that this decision does not make much sense, and that it should be reconsidered!
January 29, 2026 at 2:00 PM
In this new paper (w/ @mariaa.bsky.social ) we study these questions, and try to provide some answers.
Overall, we find evidence that this decision does not make much sense, and that it should be reconsidered!
Overall, we find evidence that this decision does not make much sense, and that it should be reconsidered!
However, they provided no empirical evidence to support this decision. How many LLM-generated papers are being posted on arXiv? How many position papers are posted on arXiv? Do these ratios justify this abrupt solution? What are 'review' papers anyway?
January 29, 2026 at 2:00 PM
However, they provided no empirical evidence to support this decision. How many LLM-generated papers are being posted on arXiv? How many position papers are posted on arXiv? Do these ratios justify this abrupt solution? What are 'review' papers anyway?
Microsoft word wizard
January 16, 2026 at 7:03 PM
Microsoft word wizard