Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study evaluates the efficacy of AI disclosure policies in top computer science venues, revealing that these policies are often under-specified and misaligned with researcher expectations. Through a survey of 109 computer science researchers, the authors identify that disclosures are deemed most critical in research design and low human involvement tasks, while an analysis of 13,867 disclosure statements from EMNLP 2025 and ICLR 2026 highlights significant discrepancies between expectations and actual practices. The findings underscore the need for improved alignment between AI disclosure policies and the realities of AI use in research, proposing a structured approach to enhance clarity and compliance.
Researchers expect AI disclosures to be more informative, yet current practices often miss the mark, especially in critical areas like research design.
As generative AI tools find increasing use in research workflows, ongoing debates on their impact, appropriateness and responsible use have led policymakers to enact policies to disclose AI use at multiple publishing venues. However, are current AI disclosure policies and practices reflective of their purpose? In this work, we first investigate disclosure policies of top computer science venues and find that despite their prevalence, they remain highly under-specified. Secondly, through a survey of computer science researchers (N=$109$), we characterize the necessity of disclosures across different research tasks and levels of human involvement. We learn that researchers find disclosures most necessary for tasks involving research design, and for tasks when the human involvement is low. We also compile expectations that researchers have about the information to be conveyed in AI disclosure statements. Lastly, through an analysis of $13867$ disclosure statements from EMNLP $2025$ and ICLR $2026$, we reveal a large disconnect between these expectations and AI disclosures in practice---a prime example being writing assistance which is deemed less necessary but is frequently disclosed. We conclude with recommendations to align AI disclosure policies and practices with expectations, suggesting a categorization of research tasks by perceived necessity and a boilerplate template capturing expected details.
