← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2610.34449 · v1
Is the arXiv Apocalypse upon us? A break in preprint growth coincident with agentic AI
首次提交 2026-10-26 01:09
版本更新 2026-10-26 01:09
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:36
摘要
As an experiment in agentic assisted analysis, we used an agentic AI model to analyse the effect of agentic AI on arXiv submissions; data acquisition, analysis and the first draft were carried out by the model under the author's direction. Monthly arXiv submissions have grown exponentially for three decades, at about $9\%$ per year. Fitting a piecewise log-linear trend with seasonal modulation to the full record, we find two post-pandemic breaks in growth rate. The first, in mid-2022, precedes ChatGPT and is carried by the expansion of AI research within computer science (CS); outside CS, growth from 2022 to 2025 remained at $8\%$ per year. The second, between December 2025 and February 2026, follows the release of models capable of extended autonomous work and is absent from the AI categories themselves. Since December 2025 submissions without a CS listing have run $17\%$ above trend, and in September 2026 total submissions reached a record $40\,363$. The excess is largest in mathematics, where submissions doubled within a year, and follows a gradient from formal and theoretical fields to experimental ones that is not ordered by surveyed rates of AI-tool adoption. In mathematics the increase is distributed across subfields and authors, two-thirds of it arising from a larger number of distinct authors rather than from a few prolific submitters. Across fields the clearest signature is a shift to single authorship: solo-authored papers rose by $70\%$ within a year in mathematics and condensed matter, and by $44\%$ in quantitative biology even as its total output fell, but not in experimental particle physics. The analysis is deliberately agnostic of LLM-detection methods: it uses only submission counts and metadata, with treatment timing fixed by calendar dates, and is therefore free of the outcome-triggered timing bias of author-level studies.
作者备注：9 pages, 2 figures, 3 tables. Submitted to PNAS
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-10-26 01:09 · 最新观测版本
Is the arXiv Apocalypse upon us? A break in preprint growth coincident with agentic AI
As an experiment in agentic assisted analysis, we used an agentic AI model to analyse the effect of agentic AI on arXiv submissions; data acquisition, analysis and the first draft were carried out by the model under the author's direction. Monthly arXiv submissions have grown exponentially for three decades, at about $9\%$ per year. Fitting a piecewise log-linear trend with seasonal modulation to the full record, we find two post-pandemic breaks in growth rate. The first, in mid-2022, precedes ChatGPT and is carried by the expansion of AI research within computer science (CS); outside CS, growth from 2022 to 2025 remained at $8\%$ per year. The second, between December 2025 and February 2026, follows the release of models capable of extended autonomous work and is absent from the AI categories themselves. Since December 2025 submissions without a CS listing have run $17\%$ above trend, and in September 2026 total submissions reached a record $40\,363$. The excess is largest in mathematics, where submissions doubled within a year, and follows a gradient from formal and theoretical fields to experimental ones that is not ordered by surveyed rates of AI-tool adoption. In mathematics the increase is distributed across subfields and authors, two-thirds of it arising from a larger number of distinct authors rather than from a few prolific submitters. Across fields the clearest signature is a shift to single authorship: solo-authored papers rose by $70\%$ within a year in mathematics and condensed matter, and by $44\%$ in quantitative biology even as its total output fell, but not in experimental particle physics. The analysis is deliberately agnostic of LLM-detection methods: it uses only submission counts and metadata, with treatment timing fixed by calendar dates, and is therefore free of the outcome-triggered timing bias of author-level studies.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗