---
date: Monday, June 29^th^, 2026
subtitle: The academic feed for completionists
title: Subscribing to arXiv
---

How do you find out about new papers? Do you [curate an academic Twitter
feed?](https://space.ong.ac/optimising-twitter) Do you set up alerts on
Google Scholar for specific keywords? Do you keep an eye on the #papers
channel in each of the Slacks/Discords you frequent? Do you ask an LLM
for literature recommendations?

I don't systematically do any of those things. Instead, I read arXiv.
More specifically, for around a year, I've started most days by reading
all of the new titles posted to arXiv under a broad set of computer
science and machine learning categories.

How crazy is that?

## ArXiv

In principle, subscribing to all arXiv preprints doesn't seem crazy at
all. ArXiv was literally founded around the idea of widely sharing new
preprints by email. Today, one of arXiv's core features remains daily
email notifications about new papers posted in each category. (When you
submit a paper, you get a preview of how your paper will appear in the
listings, namely a distinctively retro fixed-width plain-text rendering
of your title and abstract that betrays the age of this feature.)

In practice, subscribing to all arXiv preprints seems totally crazy. The
mailing lists were designed in a time when arXiv posted a few preprints
per day, and while this is still the case in some fields, machine
learning has long since left those days behind. ArXiv posts hundreds of
machine learning papers every day. Machine learning is an incredibly
broad field, and while my interests are broad, they're not *that* broad:
around 97 out of every 100 of them are not at all relevant to my
interests. This is an extremely noisy channel for paper recommendations.

The thing is, not everyone promotes their papers on twitter. And not
everyone publishes their relevant ideas under the keywords I am
expecting, or cites the papers I know. On the other hand, almost all
academic papers that are relevant to my interest are posted as preprints
to arXiv. Therefore, if I have the ambition to see every paper that is
relevant to my research as soon as it is released, I can't afford to
skip arXiv.

## Logistics

I don't actually monitor the titles via email subscription. There are no
good email clients, so keeping track of my progress through the lists
would be too difficult. Besides, this would be poor separation of
concerns.

I needed a more streamlined and reliable tool to keep track of which
titles I have seen and which I haven't, and to help me efficiently work
through these lists.

So as I started reading, I started building
[firehose](https://github.com/matomatical/firehose). It's a
fittingly-retro command-line Python app with the following features.

-   It maintains a local index of every paper posted to the arXiv
    categories and whether I have seen them.
-   It streams batches of titles/abstracts to the screen one at a time,
    allowing me to flick through them and save titles/PDFs to my
    reference manager with keyboard shortcuts.
-   It draws pretty calendars showing how many titles I scan per day and
    how well I'm managing to keep up with the overwhelming onslaught of
    papers.

Originally, I kept track of which papers I downloaded out of the ones I
saw, giving me a personalised data set representing my research
interests. More recently, I added more fine-grained logging and going
forward I'll be able to measure how efficiently I scan titles and file
them into my reference manager.

I don't have precise timing information for the first year of usage. My
best guess is that I spent something like 5 seconds per title on
average, including time to read interesting abstracts when I wasn't sure
from the title, and to download/file away useful papers into my reading
list. This suggests that reading about 120k titles posted between
mid-April 2025 and late February 2026 took me about 30 minutes per day.

I haven't been doing this for a few months due to some major deadlines
and travel commitments, but I'm resuming now, and I think I can commit
to 30 minutes a day of title scanning going forward. That's comparable
to the time I imagine I would mindlessly sink into scrolling twitter
feeds if I were a twitter user (and this way, I own my own engagement
data).

## Review

After spending so many dozens of hours scanning so many thousand of
titles on arXiv, what have I learned? I haven't systematised the
insights enough to put them all into words, but here is a rendition of
the 'vibe' of reading almost a year of arXiv.

Firstly, I noticed that about 2.5 percent of the papers I saw seemed
relevant enough to my research interests to file in my reading list.
While there are vastly more irrelevant papers, this still does seem to
me to be a large number of hits---I seem to have particularly broad
interests compared to other researchers. It's a bit hard to describe
exactly what those interests are, but I am starting to get a clearer
picture of it through this process, and I have a definitive data set to
mine for insights in the future as well.

Even for the bulk of papers I am *not* interested in, I get a fairly
visceral sense of the volume and depth of work in modern machine
learning. I watch in real time as researchers rapidly flock after new
topics (KANs, AI scientists, social media analyses of moltbook). This
all seems important for my intellectual development in ways that (again)
I'm not yet able to articulate. This benefit comes from the noise more
than from the signal.

Moreover, there have been some exciting finds. Sometimes, days after
having a conversation with a colleague about their research ideas, I'll
see a paper posted that is highly relevant to their topic, and
immediately forward it to them. For papers outside of the socio-academic
bubble I inhabit with my colleagues, they might not have known about
this work otherwise. It's rewarding to be the one to import such papers
into my group. It's also nice to see names of colleagues show up on the
feed.

Finally, using this tool is a pretty interesting psychological
experience. When using the tool, I feel really powerful and like nothing
could surprise me. It's also something easy to build a habit around,
providing a nice rewarding feeling when I get to the end of the day's
new papers. I have found that even when I don't have the time or energy
to start deep work, I can often still manage to start up firehose and
read the day's papers---an instance of [structured
procrastination](https://structuredprocrastination.com/).

## Limitations

Subscribing to arXiv isn't [all you
need](https://all-you-need.far.in.net/). There are a few ways in which
arXiv is flawed as a "completionist academic feed."

Not all relevant academic work is posted to arXiv.

-   While almost all *papers* are posted as preprints in machine
    learning, there are some academically relevant web-first journals
    (distill, Anthropic's transformer circuits thread) and blogs
    (LessWrong). Increasingly, frontier labs self-host their preprints
    that are more like technical reports too.

-   The most recent and potentially relevant academic work happens in
    conversations between researchers (in organisations, at
    conferences), or also on twitter these days. For the true cutting
    edge, by the time it's on arXiv it's too late.

-   There are also relevant papers from before I started scanning. I
    could in principle work through the historical backlog of arXiv, but
    it's going to take too much time, and there were papers even before
    that.

-   Ultimately, even if I look at a relevant paper's title for a few
    seconds, I might not notice it. Maybe I miss the significance of the
    title, or maybe it would be obvious but for a lapse in concentration
    as my mind wanders during my morning ritual.

If I want to be truly completionist, I should expand firehose to include
web journals, blogs, twitter profiles, historical conference proceedings
and journals. I'm considering expanding the tool in this direction, into
a unified feed of multiple sources of academic work, present and
historical. In the mean time, I'm not too bothered by this. At a field
level, senior researchers already have the historical perspective, many
people are already on twitter. On the other hand, I don't know anyone
else in my field who attempts to do what I'm doing with arXiv. (I also
try to scan mindfully, and I sometimes do leave my cloister and talk
with colleagues).

I already mentioned the noise issue. I think overall right now it's
tolerable. However, it's trending in the direction of *more* noise going
forward, as the field expands naturally and, more recently, with notable
increases in research automation. ArXiv is trying to filter out pure
slop and hold back the tide, but it's currently an uphill battle.

On this front, I think I can hold out a little longer, but not forever.
Eventually, I might have to fight fire with fire. After amassing a
sizeable personal data set representing my interests, it may be possible
to train my own filters. With control over the model, I can prioritise
recall over precision for the most part, but I might be willing to
sacrifice a little recall to cut out the majority of the noise.

Finally, reading all the titles in the world isn't going to produce
great research. I have so far had great success in building a habit
around the shallowest stage of the research pipeline. I still need to
invest in the deeper parts: spending the long hours of poring over
equations and plots, launching my own experiments, to actually make
progress.

But I wouldn't overstate this concern. I'm not just reading titles,
after all. When I find a relevant title, I file it into my reference
manager. Over time, that reference manager has grown to include
thousands of papers. How could I ever read so many papers? That's the
*wrong question*---this isn't a reading list, it's an
[antilibrary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilibrary). When I tend
carefully to its growth, finding precisely the right place for each new
title, I'm forging new mental connections and abstractions across my
corner of the vast computer science and machine learning literatures.
Once I finish filing away new titles each morning, I'm free to spend the
rest of my day putting this perspective to use.

## Conclusion

Would I recommend subscribing to arXiv? Not lightly. It's certainly not
for the faint of heart. If you prefer precision over recall, you might
want to use another tool. But while reading hundreds of titles every day
can be somewhat *exhausting,* out of all the methods I know, it also
comes the closest to being *exhaustive.* And so far, I'm enjoying the
results. So, I'm going to keep at it a little longer.