Two papers a month, still a record: arXiv's AI cap fails to slow October

What's going on

arXiv is the world's most important preprint server. Preprints are research papers posted publicly before peer review, or with no peer review at all. Almost every new AI method shows up there first. On October 1, 2026, arXiv introduced a new rule: each submitter may upload only two new papers per calendar month. Since 2024, no more than three papers per submitter can be in moderation at the same time. The trigger was a record September with 40,363 submissions and nearly 9,000 support requests to staff and volunteer moderators. At arXiv, moderation means humans check before publication whether a paper is scholarly at all and fits the chosen category. They don't check whether the results are correct.

The first numbers since the rule took effect are now in. According to arXiv's monthly statistics (as of November 9), October brought 42,152 new submissions. That's another record, and we haven't found any coverage of it so far. This article explains why a per-person cap barely holds back the flood and what that means for anyone who relies on arXiv as a source.

The numbers: growth keeps going

We compared the monthly figures from arXiv's statistics file with the previous year. According to the accompanying page, arXiv counts “new submissions received during the month.” New versions of existing papers aren't included, and deleted papers are subtracted. The page doesn't say explicitly whether papers that are later rejected are counted.

Three things stand out:

• No dip. Year-over-year growth in October is just as high as in September, before the rule.
• Almost the same per day. October has one more day than September. October saw about 1,360 submissions per day, September about 1,345. So the rule didn't slow anything down. There was no further jump either. The real surge came between August (about 1,006 per day) and September.
• The year is already beaten. January through October 2026 added up to 312,802 submissions. All of 2025 had 284,486.

Part of the autumn spike is seasonal. The major AI conference ICLR had its 2027 submission deadline on September 25, and many teams post their submissions to arXiv afterward. In 2024, submissions rose from 20,569 in September to 24,226 in October, and in 2025 from 26,646 to 27,692. October 2026 fits this pattern. It just shows no slowdown at all.

Why a per-person cap barely bites

1. It only hits whoever uploads. According to arXiv's FAQ, all limits apply “only to submitters.” A paper with ten authors counts only against the quota of the person who clicks “Submit.” The FAQ even explicitly advises co-authors to coordinate. So a five-person team can submit ten papers a month. According to Socket's blog, the people mainly affected are solo researchers and small groups where one person used to upload everything. There's some ambiguity, because arXiv's moderation page refers to “each author” while the FAQ only mentions the submitter. The blog Reposquare points this out.

2. Very few people submit more than two papers at all. Two papers a month adds up to 24 a year, and few people get there. arXiv hasn't published how many submitters actually hit the limit. Two other datasets give a sense of scale:

• At ICLR 2026, according to the ICLR blog, fewer than 0.2 percent of all authors appeared on more than 20 submissions.
• An analysis of math submissions on arXiv (January to August 2026, arXiv:2609.04872) counts 289 author IDs with at least ten submissions in eight months. That's 0.49 percent of all active author IDs. The highest count was 44. The top 1 percent of authors accounted for 6.5 percent of all authorships.

Our take: Even if these prolific authors stopped submitting entirely, submissions would drop by only a single-digit percentage. Overall growth is above 50 percent. The flood comes from breadth: lots of people each writing one or two papers with AI help, plus lots of new submitters. Prolific authors make up only a small part of it.

3. arXiv was after fairness, not lower volume. To be fair, arXiv never promised the total would drop. The blog post says the goal is to distribute moderators' time “fairly among authors.” Thomas Dietterich, chair of the Editorial Advisory Council, said a “relatively small fraction of authors” submit many low-quality papers and delay the good ones. According to Times Higher Education, arXiv's scientific director Steinn Sigurdsson describes the cap as a way to “buy us some breathing room.” Without it, “the whole thing would have collapsed.” Whether moderators actually got relief, for example through fewer support requests, isn't publicly known. arXiv hasn't commented on the October numbers so far. According to Ralph Wijers, quoted by Socket in January, the rejection rate has climbed from a historical 4 percent or so to 10 to 12 percent.

Where the real growth is: math ahead of language models

We counted the entries per field on arXiv's monthly listings. The listings also include papers cross-listed from other categories. A paper can appear in several listings, so the numbers can't be added up.

Math is the most striking case. Its listing went from 6,455 entries in June to 7,332 in August and 10,286 in September, doubling year over year. That fits studies describing a “gold rush” in AI-assisted mathematics. According to arXiv:2609.04872, the biggest increases from 2025 to 2026 were in single-author papers (+54.7%) and in papers by prolific authors with at least ten submissions (+170%). Another analysis found the share of math papers with disclosed AI assistance rose from 4.75 percent in March to 24.14 percent by August 20. Undisclosed use isn't included. By the way, OpenAI's 719 AI-generated math manuscripts aren't in these figures. They're on GitHub.

Computation and language (cs.CL), long the poster child of the AI paper flood, is growing comparatively slowly. arXiv's statement that cs.AI grew more than sixfold in two years apparently refers to papers with cs.AI as their primary category. According to an analysis by SummarizePaper, that figure rose 150 percent from January to September. The monthly listing including cross-lists grew “only” 2.3-fold from September 2024 (2,670) to September 2026 (6,122).

What others are trying

• Conferences cap submissions per author, and for every author. ICLR 2027 allows no more than 20 submissions per person. If you've never published at a major AI conference, you may submit only one paper on which no author qualifies as a reviewer. Excess papers are removed at random. Even so, ICLR registered around 62,000 abstracts according to Reviewer3, and Paper Copilot counts 42,790 submissions. A year earlier, there were around 19,500 valid ones. According to RIKEN, NeurIPS 2026 received 30,709 valid submissions, up from 21,575 the year before. Computer scientist Nihar Shah proposes a “harmonic quota” in arXiv:2606.10293, under which each co-author is charged only a fraction of a paper. That way collaboration wouldn't be penalized, and adding sham authors wouldn't pay off.
• bioRxiv and medRxiv aren't planning any caps, according to Times Higher Education. They see far less traffic: 5,049 new preprints in September, up from 4,770 a year earlier. In their AI policy, though, they reserve the right to reject papers or restrict authors, for example when a paper has many fabricated references.
• SSRN has no cap, according to Elsevier. However, 257 articles by a single author were reportedly removed.
• OSF has suspended its general preprint server indefinitely because of a growing number of suspicious and AI-generated submissions.
• Hexagon, a new server for mathematics and theoretical computer science, launched on October 10, according to Times Higher Education. It explicitly accepts fully AI-generated papers.

What this means for readers

A paper on arXiv isn't peer-reviewed. Moderation filters out unsuitable material but doesn't check results. The “Into the Unknown” benchmark shows how much that difference matters: 114 of the 135 papers written by AI agents in it described work that never took place. When you read a story along the lines of “a new arXiv paper shows …,” check a few things. Are code and data available? Can you track down the sources? Was the paper accepted by a conference or journal? Have the authors published other work? And do the numbers come from the authors' own experiments, or only from the text?

The bigger picture

The first month shows that a cap per submitter may spread moderators' work more fairly, but it doesn't stop the overall flood. That's built into the design. The limit affects only a tiny share of submitters, co-authors can take turns, and the growth comes from breadth. Our take: If arXiv wants to cut the volume, it has three options left. It can introduce per-author limits like ICLR's, raise the bar for new submitters further, or automate moderation. Each option has downsides, for example for independent researchers without an institution. Whether October would have been even higher without the cap is still unclear. The numbers can't tell us, and arXiv hasn't published an analysis yet. arXiv itself calls the rule a stopgap, so the next change probably won't be long in coming.