arXiv caps submitters at two papers a month after a 51% jump in submissions

Both figures are for September, so the academic calendar is the same each year and the rise is not a seasonal effect [c1, c2]. Submissions grew by 6,077, or about 30%, from 2024 to 2025 ^[1]. The next year they grew by 13,717, about 51% ^[2]. The yearly increase more than doubled, and the September 2026 count is close to twice the 2024 one [d3, d4].

The thing these counts don't tell you is how many of the 40,363 papers were written by a machine, or whether moderators are now letting more weak work through. New Scientist puts the surge down to AI that can produce mathematical papers quickly with minimal human effort ^[9]. arXiv spokesperson Kat Boboris wrote of "an increase in thin papers of narrow scope" and "low value" research ^[5]. arXiv allows authors to use AI if they disclose it ^[6]. The totals also cover the whole site, which hosts physics, astronomy and economics as well as mathematics ^[8]. The complaints in the reporting all come from mathematicians. arXiv did not respond to New Scientist's request for an interview ^[18].

The same blog post says that before models could write papers, the work of writing them kept submissions within a practical limit, and moderators restrained submitters who seemed to go beyond it ^[7]. The two-a-month rule puts that informal practice in writing ^[3]. A per-person ceiling cuts volume when a few heavy posters drive the growth ^[3]. Whether it does that here depends on how the 40,363 papers are spread across authors ^[2]. New Scientist reports that non-professional mathematicians can now use AI tools to solve reasonably difficult problems and generate papers about them automatically ^[19]. If the surge comes from many such newcomers posting one or two papers each, the cap leaves most of it in place ^[3].

arXiv hosts work that no journal has reviewed yet, so the screening falls to its moderators [c8, c10]. At the September 2026 rate they faced roughly 1,345 papers a day ^[5]. "ArXiv is a serious problem, and it might not survive the onslaught," said Kevin Buzzard of Imperial College London ^[12].

Buzzard objects to bad explanation as much as to error. "It's not just about correctness; it's about human understanding, and AI is sometimes very poor at explaining," he said ^[13]. Chaim Goodman-Strauss of the University of Arkansas called one paper this week "basically a piece of slop", though it contained a valid solution to a long-standing problem ^[14]. Terence Tao of the University of California, Los Angeles has complained to New Scientist that the way discoveries are "dumped" on mathematicians may harm the field ^[15]. Aleksandr Logunov of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said journals are taking the same strain. "Right now, journals are flooded with submissions of AI articles," he said ^[16].