[Hotstorage-sc] Input regarding AI generated submissions to HS '26

[Philip Shilane]

Hello,

I think we have to assume that all paper submissions will have some
AI-generated content.  This might involve clarity improvements, which I am
fine with.  It could be AI tools writing long sections, which I oppose but
don't see a way to stop.

I support desk rejecting papers with hallucinated references.  AI-tools
ought to help us detect questionable references.

Papers can be rejected because they are not clearly written.  In severe
cases, I think it is ok for reviewers to reject a submission after reading
a few pages.

About the 10 submissions, I think they have to be treated individually for
this year's conference.  We can consider future limits.  If some of these
papers have overlapping concepts, it is a tricky situation.  If the papers
came from different authors, we would potentially accept multiple as
parallel, independent research. It is more troubling when similar papers
come from the same authors, and without reading the submissions, it is hard
to give concrete advice.

If the chairs want to step in and make a decision on these submissions
outside of the normal review paths, I suggest they get support from Ashvin
and potentially the full SC.

Phil









On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 8:00 PM Ashvin Goel via Hotstorage-sc <
hotstorage-sc at fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The HS '26 PC chairs (Young-ri and Bryan) are asking for input from us
> regarding a set of paper submissions that have likely been AI generated.
> Two reviewers expressed concerns to the chairs. They found several papers
> with similar concepts applied to different areas, following a similar
> structure, language (including hard to understand or strange words) and
> flaws. The chairs found that a set of authors had submitted 10 papers (13%
> of the 79 submissions). The reviewers are currently leaning negative on
> several of these papers, pointing out that the papers are difficult to
> understand, describe concepts vaguely, and use unfamiliar language. The
> positive-leaning papers will be discussed at the PC meeting.
>
> The chairs are looking for input about the best course of action to
> handle this case of suspected AI-generated papers. On the one hand, ACM
> allows the use of undisclosed AI. Thus, rejections should be grounded on
> the paper's technical contribution and novelty, rather than AI use, which
> is hard to detect accurately using current AI detection tools. On the other
> hand, such AI-generated papers will overwhelm reviewers in the future.
>
> Let me know if you have any specific suggestions regarding handling the
> current case with the 10 submissions. More broadly, we should discuss if HS
> should put in place any policies for AI generated papers. Here are some
> examples I have seen:
>
> 1. Using multiple detectors and letting reviewers know so they can decide
> 2. Desk rejecting papers with hallucinated references
> 3. Limiting number of submissions by authors
>
> Thanks
> Ashvin
> --
> Hotstorage-sc mailing list
> Hotstorage-sc at fsl.cs.sunysb.edu
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fhotstorage-sc&c=E,1,0P1zovwIrGcBpMKgBAQOm2nSLbpJQogZHl4c9Sg0EkivD8JpNwjpcVochT7c87-oMi5zIkLJUUlTMIKjEgEPWZcA0_Jd4PP38AH6K-9bA9ZQ75iG1CJ3bxgGww,,&typo=1
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/pipermail/hotstorage-sc/attachments/20260714/771b84bb/attachment.htm>