MIT paper on AI for materials research found to be fraudulent

45 outrun86 8 5/17/2025, 10:08:20 AM thebsdetector.substack.com ↗

Comments (8)

tough · 7h ago
> I also think that if comments were enabled on arxiv preprints, this could have led to a much more rapid conclusion to the fraud. Probably a materials scientist who read the paper realized this was fraudulent but wasn’t able to get that view quickly to the economists who were actually reading and discussing the paper. A well-written arxiv comment explaining why the data on materials similarity, for example, couldn’t be true, would have gone a long way.

could this work outside/on top of arxiv?

readthenotes1 · 8h ago
I am shocked, "shocked*, to find fraud in the Science community!

The best thing from Science for the last 15 years or so has been the focus on discovering and publicizing it.

feverzsj · 7h ago
Just like most AI papers.
trollied · 8h ago
pera · 8h ago
This is actually an in-depth analysis on the fraudulent paper and it's much more interesting than the WSJ article. One for dang to decide I guess.
ChrisArchitect · 7h ago
And it's shared there adding to large discussion. The discussion is over there.
atleastoptimal · 7h ago
The ironic thing is I'm sure AI for materials research isn't too far from being avaliable or possible, they were just a bit too early.
whatshisface · 7h ago
There are a lot of legitimate papers, this is just one fraud.