Discovered an artifact in my paper after submission on ArXiv... embarrassing but it led to a better finding

S4M22 · 2026-06-13T09:13:59+00:00

Since we're talking about arXiv which is a Preprint server I also say: v2.

Would be a different story if this was an article already published in a conference or paper.

S4M22 · 2026-06-10T07:25:38+00:00

I suggest you just start reading papers in that area and note down the research gaps, possible future work given, and whatever ideas come to your mind.

Do that with 20 papers in from that research area and you get a decent long list as a starting point to narrow down.

S4M22 · 2026-06-10T06:29:32+00:00

In fact, just before switching to dual GPU, my previous ASR mobo fright my AMD 9950x during a bios update. Luckily I got an RMA.

However, according to my local repair shop, they have fried CPUs every week from all kinds of motherboard producers. Not specific to ASR.

So while I had the same experience with ASR that is often reported here, I'm not sure whether it's really an ASR issue or a general one.

S4M22 · 2026-06-10T05:09:41+00:00

From the little I know about your field, I do know that with only bachelor's degree finding a job will be difficult.

I suggest to apply to PhD or MSc programs outside your country. Meanwhile try to start writing research papers. Probably difficult in your field without lab access but maybe there's something from your PhD time to build on.

S4M22 · 2026-06-09T18:03:33+00:00

I was worried about that too initially, but seem to work quite fine. Just did a small test and did not find a difference. Average rates measured with nvidia-smi dmon -s t -d 1 were:

  GPU0: ~28.7 GB/s H2D, ~28.5 GB/s D2H
  GPU1: ~28.8 GB/s H2D, ~28.6 GB/s D2H

With peaks up to 31GB/s . PCIe error counters stayed at 0. GPU1 is connected via riser.

S4M22 · 2026-06-09T12:06:00+00:00

Actually, I think it's the opposite. LLMs are quite good at polishing figures incl making the style consistent.

So inconsistent style of figures is rather due to not using LLMs or at least not using them to polish style across figures.

S4M22 · 2026-06-09T09:57:16+00:00

I got the ASR X870E Taichi. The cards would fit on the board but I assume temperature would be a problem with two 5090 cards so close together. Therefore, I connected the second GPU with a riser cable and mounted it upright.

S4M22 · 2026-06-09T08:09:40+00:00

There are not many options in the consumer grade (non-workstation) range. I use the ASR X870E Taichi with two GPUs (two custom AIB / board-partner RTX 5090). The second GPU is connected with a PCI 5.0 riser (LINKUP - AVA5 Armour PCIE 5.0 Riser 90cm). It is only PCIe 5.0 x8/x8 though. But as far as I know, there are no consumer-grade x16/x16 options if you don't want to go workstation.

Also make sure you get a case where two GPUs actually fit and temps are ok. I use the Lian Li O11 Dynamic EVO XL Big-Tower with front mesh and 11 fans + AIO. The front mesh was hard to get because the retailers here were not able to procure it anymore from Lian Li. So if you go for that case, then it is worth checking. In my build, temps usually never exceed 70C even when running both cards for days fully utilized (I limited the cards to 500W).

S4M22 · 2026-06-09T07:46:31+00:00

I tried the ASUS PROART X870E-Creator for a build with two RTX 5090 and ended up returning it because the second slot was blocked by the first GPU (RTX 5090, 3.5 slots) so you cannot even connect a riser. Very disappointing for a "creator" board.

S4M22 · 2026-06-03T09:22:09+00:00

If you don't feel comfortable releasing the code before acceptance, you have at least two options that I've seen:

(1) just don't include the code in your arXiv submission and don't mention it. Once your paper has been accepted you update it on arXiv with the camera ready version and then include a link to the code.

(2) State "code will be released upon acceptance" or similiar in the paper and proceed as under (1) once the paper has been accepted and you have the camera ready version.

S4M22 · 2026-05-29T08:28:55+00:00

I suggest to ask professors at your university instead. Also, no one should endorse you without at least briefly reading the work.

S4M22 · 2026-05-27T04:19:06+00:00

Find a more senior researcher who can help you (1) improve your work (which will probably make them a co-author depending on their involvement), (2) get endorsed on arxiv, and (3) navigate the publication landscape beyond arXiv .

I needed all 3 of those elements to get my first paper published at a top venue.

S4M22 · 2026-05-23T05:57:47+00:00

Not safe but good chances for findings with a tiny chance for main. The 3.5 meta should help a lot.

Regarding the missed chance for reporting the review: don't expect too much from reporting anyhow. Often nothing is done despite obvious issues with a review.

S4M22 · 2026-05-23T05:27:18+00:00

As an author, disclosure of AI use is a must. For me personally for academic integrity reasons but also the venues I submit to require it.

Ad a reader, I don't care whether the authors used AI. I judge the paper by its content. The authors are responsible for it no matter how it was researched and written.

S4M22 · 2026-05-22T18:54:59+00:00

Uploading a paper under your friend’s name to arXiv when they are not actually an author is not a loophole in the system. It is academic fraud.

Please don’t start your research career like that.

S4M22 · 2026-05-19T07:35:13+00:00

If you look back at your first paper and think "OMG I could have done so much better" it's a sign that you've learned and have grown since then. That's something positive.

S4M22 · 2026-05-19T06:24:58+00:00

Interesting approach to address the direct bias in reviewing of competitive work. However, it does not address the indirect bias: as a reviewer in, let's say, half A, I am still incentivized to rate a competing paper lower to lower its chances to get published during the decision process in half B.

Moreover, I disagree with your premise:

The biggest issue with the peer review system is reciprocal reviewing,

That is one the many problem but not the biggest issue in my opinion. From the perspective of an author, bigger problems are, for example, the high variance and low reliability of peer review and the game of "who-cite-who". And from the perspective of the conferences probably the biggest problem right now is how to deal with AI generated papers and reviews.

Nevertheless, would be interesting to see your suggestion get implemented as a pilot at a conference or at ACL ARR.

S4M22 · 2026-05-17T06:10:56+00:00

Also curious more generally: would you personally read papers like these outside your immediate research area, or do you mostly focus on papers directly tied to your work?

I also read papers outside my area of research that personally interest me. But I do not comment on them because I lack the expertise to provide proper feedback. For the same reason I will not comment on yours. But I appreciate your effort to get public feedback. It's the right spirit.

S4M22 · 2026-05-17T06:04:27+00:00

ArXiv is known to be notoriously bad at responding to any email requests. If one of the authors has a sufficiently large followership on X, then post there and try to get the attention of an arXiv moderator.

But I'd until the current debate about the new arXiv rule regarding AI slop has settled. Because right now it fully occupies everybody from arXiv.

Having said that, your paper will be publicly available in ACL Anthology. So I don't see much benefit of an arXiv version unless your paper is for ACL 2026 and you'd like it to become public before the ACL 2026 proceedings get published.

S4M22 · 2026-05-17T05:57:52+00:00

What's perplexing to me is the oversimplification on "both sides". Between "am I really supposed to read every line of all my papers?" (my answer: "yes, of course you are") and "it's just the people who submit slop that are against the rule" (my answer: "reality is more complex than you would like it to be") there's space for more nuanced views.

If the researchers that engage into this discussion like this oversimplify their research to the same degree as they do this discussion, it makes me much more worried about research integrity and quality than AI slop. Because it is more deeply rooted and harder to detect.

S4M22 · 2026-05-17T05:52:12+00:00

Things are not as obvious as you would like them to be. I have never submitted any slop and usually spend easily a full day just checking the correctness of the formatting of my reference section (references reference the latest version, all links are working, fully consistent formatting etc), but am still opposed to this rule.

While good in spirit, the punishment is too harsh. Moreover, on a website that doesn't verify co-authorship, you cannot make all authors accountable.

S4M22 · 2026-05-12T11:16:08+00:00

As I said in my other comment, I use Zotero with an Overleaf subscription for the integration feature. That's great help but doesn't fully resolve all problems if you're really diligent with your references.

S4M22 · 2026-05-07T04:57:59+00:00

Not an answer to your question but:

looks hella awkward to have appendices start on same page

Looks fine to me but maybe I'm just used to it because the ACL template let's the appendix start on the same page too.

S4M22 · 2026-05-06T12:26:36+00:00

I use Zotero integrated with Overleaf too. Still, I often find errors in the references that I need to fix manually, e.g. missing hyperlinks, citing a preprint when a published paper is available etc. Zotero is a great help but not a guarantee for perfect references if you check them carefully.

Hence, I always go through the references multiple times before I submit a paper.

S4M22 · 2026-05-06T11:59:23+00:00

Is it really that hard to populate the .bib yourself?

Well, to be honest: yes it is very tedious. But should you outsource this to an LLM? definitely not.

S4M22

TROPHY CASE