Guarding against artificial intelligence--hallucinated citations: the case for full-text reference deposit

The tendency of generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "hallucinate" false information is well-known; AI-generated citations to non-existent sources have made their way into the reference lists of peer-reviewed publications. Here, I propose a solution to this problem, taking inspiration from the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) data sharing guidelines, the clash of generative AI with the American judiciary, and the precedent set by submissions of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Journals should require authors to submit the full text of each cited source along with their manuscripts, thereby preventing authors from citing any material whose full text they cannot produce. This solution requires limited additional work on the part of authors or editors while effectively immunizing journals against hallucinated references.

Suspected Undeclared Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Academic Literature: An Analysis of the Academ-AI Dataset

Since generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as OpenAI's ChatGPT became widely available, researchers have used them in the writing process. The consensus of the academic publishing community is that such usage must be declared in the published article. Academ-AI documents examples of suspected undeclared AI usage in the academic literature, discernible primarily due to the appearance in research papers of idiosyncratic verbiage characteristic of large language model (LLM)-based chatbots. This analysis of the first 500 examples collected reveals that the problem is widespread, penetrating the journals and conference proceedings of highly respected publishers. Undeclared AI seems to appear in journals with higher citation metrics and higher article processing charges (APCs), precisely those outlets that should theoretically have the resources and expertise to avoid such oversights. An extremely small minority of cases are corrected post publication, and the corrections are often insufficient to rectify the problem. The 500 examples analyzed here likely represent a small fraction of the undeclared AI present in the academic literature, much of which may be undetectable. Publishers must enforce their policies against undeclared AI usage in cases that are detectable; this is the best defense currently available to the academic publishing community against the proliferation of undisclosed AI.

Multi-Group Proportional Representation

Image search and retrieval tasks can perpetuate harmful stereotypes, erase cultural identities, and amplify social disparities. Current approaches to mitigate these representational harms balance the number of retrieved items across population groups defined by a small number of (often binary) attributes. However, most existing methods overlook intersectional groups determined by combinations of group attributes, such as gender, race, and ethnicity. We introduce Multi-Group Proportional Representation (MPR), a novel metric that measures representation across intersectional groups. We develop practical methods for estimating MPR, provide theoretical guarantees, and propose optimization algorithms to ensure MPR in retrieval. We demonstrate that existing methods optimizing for equal and proportional representation metrics may fail to promote MPR. Crucially, our work shows that optimizing MPR yields more proportional representation across multiple intersectional groups specified by a rich function class, often with minimal compromise in retrieval accuracy.