Academic Integrity

The rapid adoption of generative AI has made final artifacts unreliable evidence of student learning, and AI detectors that examine only the finished product are inaccurate and ethically contentious. Process data offers an alternative, but prior work covers only English essay writing. We ask whether AI assistance carries a temporal signature, whether it generalizes from writing to programming, and whether it distinguishes ordinary collaboration from wholesale delegation. We analyze three public corpora: CoAuthor (1,447 keystroke-level co-writing sessions), RealHumanEval (editor telemetry from 243 programmer records), and a pre-LLM CS1 corpus (5.1 million keystrokes) as a human-only baseline, comparing minimal-AI work, collaborative AI use, and simulated wholesale delegation. Three findings emerge. First, the signature generalizes: AI contributions arrive in bursts far outside the author's own baseline in both mediums (paired d_z = 1.13 and 3.54). Second, engagement diverges by medium: 93% of AI-inserted characters survived to writers' final documents, while only 14% of accepted code suggestions survived intact. Third, classifiers using only observable temporal features separate simulated delegation from authentic work nearly perfectly (F1 $\geq$ 0.997; at most 0.5% of real work misclassified), while ordinary collaboration remains hard to distinguish from unassisted work. Temporal evidence flags wholesale delegation rather than assistance, positioning process visibility as a candidate evidentiary basis for academic integrity, pending validation in authentic coursework.

We present a comparative evaluation of six information retrieval methods for the task of academic advisor discovery: ranking CS faculty members by relevance to a graduate applicant's research interest statement. The methods span sparse lexical matching (Jaccard overlap, TF-IDF, BM25), dense semantic retrieval (all-MiniLM-L6-v2 sentence embeddings), hybrid score fusion, and learning-to-rank. Evaluation uses a new domain-specific collection: 768 faculty profiles scraped from 9 US CS departments, with 162 graded relevance judgments (grade 0/1/2) across 5 queries representing distinct graduate student research profiles. Across all five queries, Reranked achieves the highest mean NDCG@10 (0.477, std 0.138), followed by Semantic (0.450), Hybrid (0.421), BM25 (0.406), Jaccard (0.303), and TF-IDF (0.246). After Bonferroni correction across all 15 pairwise comparisons, TF-IDF is significantly worse than BM25, Semantic, Hybrid, and Reranked; no other pairwise difference survives correction at 5 queries. A field ablation reveals that biography alone (NDCG 0.634) outperforms the full model combining biography with research area tags (0.593). A controlled experiment shows that concatenating arXiv paper abstracts reduces NDCG@10 by 0.176, motivating a late-fusion architecture. All code, scrapers, and relevance labels are released openly.

Institutions use commercial AI detectors for academic integrity, yet detectors cannot distinguish AI editing from full LLM drafts and may treat both as misconduct. In a controlled study of published English abstracts (four domains; 2013 to 2015 vs. 2023 to 2025), we quantify this policy failure under proxy human/AI labels at tau=0.50. Light "refine abstract only" edits, a proxy for guideline-compliant AI assistance, are flagged at 64 to 80% (Pangram/GPTZero). Unmodified 2023 to 2025 originals are flagged at 9 to 15%, with non-STEM rates far above STEM (p<0.001); elevated scores track long-token and Academic Word List density, not authorship intent alone. After Undetectable AI humanization, evasion is near-total: fewer than 4% of AI-labeled rewrites remain flagged (post-humanization detection rate <4%; FNR >96%). Honest AI-editing results in a higher sanction risk than humanizer-assisted evasion. Therefore, detector scores should not serve as standalone misconduct evidence.

The rise of generative AI (GenAI) in higher education has prompted urgent debates surrounding academic integrity and ethical use. This study examines cross-cultural differences in student perceptions of GenAI use, comparing responses from students at Canadian and South Korean universities. Using a scenario-based survey administered in Fall 2024, we analyzed how students judged the ethicality and rule compliance of AI-assisted coding practices. Results reveal that Canadian students were consistently more likely to perceive the use of GenAI as both unethical and against institutional policies compared to Korean students, despite functionally identical institutional policies. Statistical analysis, including Mann-Whitney U tests and correlation coefficients, demonstrated significant differences across nearly all scenarios. Analysis of the factors used in generating scenarios indicated that the amount of AI-generated code incorporated into assignments most strongly influenced ethical judgments. Findings were interpreted through Hofstede's cultural dimensions framework, suggesting that cultural factors such as power distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance significantly shape students' ethical reasoning regarding GenAI. Our results contribute to the growing body of evidence emphasizing that equitable AI integration in education must be culturally responsive, taking into account diverse conceptions of academic integrity. We advocate for the development of nuanced AI-use guidelines that are sensitive to local cultural contexts while upholding fundamental principles of academic honesty. This study highlights the need for ongoing cross-cultural research to inform ethical AI policies and support responsible GenAI use in global higher education settings.

As generative AI (GenAI) becomes increasingly embedded in undergraduate academic writing, how students rely on these tools, rather than simply whether they use them, has become a central question for learning, academic integrity, and educational equity. Existing measures of reliance were developed inductively, focused on discrete problem-solving tasks, and validated mainly with homogeneous samples. This study developed and validated the GenAI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS), a 20-item instrument measuring four theoretically derived types of GenAI reliance: Strategic, Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic. Validation followed the multisource framework of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, drawing on a survey of 382 undergraduates at a U.S. Minority-Serving Institution and interviews with 14 purposively sampled students. Confirmatory factor analyses of six competing models supported a five-factor structure in which Strategic Reliance comprises two facets, Deliberate Use and Critical Evaluation, alongside Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic factors (CFI = .92, RMSEA = .08; DWLS CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07). Subscale reliability was acceptable to good (omega = .75-.88), and scalar measurement invariance held across gender, first-generation status, and STEM/non-STEM majors, to our knowledge the first such evidence for a GenAI reliance instrument. Rasch analysis indicated that a five-point response format would improve category functioning. Strategic reliance was positively associated with AI literacy, and the reliance types differentiated students across multiple writing process and outcome variables. The GenAI-RTS offers researchers and educators a theoretically grounded, psychometrically validated instrument for identifying undergraduate reliance profiles and supporting research, assessment, and AI literacy intervention.

Automatic prompt optimization is still underexplored for episodic few-shot relation extraction with smaller language models. We propose a two-stage framework that combines reasoning-based prompt optimization with gradient-based prompt optimization. The first stage can use any reasoning-based optimizer to make broadprompt improvements in natural language. The second stage applies our GradPO, which uses loss and gradient signals to identify high-impact prompt spans and refine them with local edits. Experiments on FS-TACRED and FS-FewRel show that local refinement usually improves prompts found by the first stage, and GradPO is the most consistent refiner. Our framework achieves state-of-the-art performance on FS-TACRED with Qwen3-4B and remains competitive on FS-FewRel.

Generative artificial intelligence(GenAI) is reshaping learning in higher education, with particularly pronounced implications for the humanities and social sciences(HSS), where learning outcomes are commonly expressed through written and interpretive forms that align closely with GenAI's capabilities. Yet, systematic evidence on the educational impacts of GenAI on HSS students remains limited. Addressing this gap, this study draws on a large-scale survey of HSS students in China to examine its role in academic development. Guided by relevant learning theories, this study focuses on four dimensions: patterns of use, effects on learning processes and academic performance, challenges associated with GenAI use, and preferred approaches to curricular integration. We found that more than half perceived enhanced learning motivation, independent thinking and creativity, although a substantial minority reported little change or even decline. Comparatively, a notably larger majority reported academic performance gains, although these gains may partly reflect limitations in conventional assessment practices. The study identifies variations in perceived learning and performance improvements among students with differing durations of GenAI experience, along with observable disciplinary differences and modest gender differences. While an overwhelming majority valued the importance of ethical considerations, only slightly more than half were satisfied with privacy protection. Limited accuracy and overreliance emerged as the most pressing concerns reported by students. Students favored partial or optional curricular integration supported by practice-oriented training, and widely recognized GenAI's significance for their future professional development. Grounded in student perspectives, this study offers evidence-based recommendations for the responsible and pedagogically meaningful integration of GenAI

University students often struggle to navigate complex academic policies, leading to advising bottlenecks and delayed access to critical information. Although large language models (LLMs) offer promise for automated assistance, their tendency toward hallucination and inability to enforce institutional constraints make them unsuitable for high-stakes policy guidance without careful architectural design. We present Carolina Guide, a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system for academic policy assistance at the University of South Carolina (USC). The system employs a modular multi-agent pipeline with institutional guardrails to provide citation-supported, policy-grounded answers to student queries while refusing unsafe requests such as course recommendations or personalized advising. We evaluate the system on a 90 query test set across 6 departments, achieving 98.9% retrieval success at the >= 2 threshold (genuinely relevant results) with the first relevant chunk at rank-1 for 98.9% of queries (MRR at 10 for rel >= 2 = 0.989). Through systematic baseline comparisons and ablation studies, we show that each architectural component-MMR reranking, adequate retrieval context (k=20), and citation enforcement-contributes measurable practical value despite limited statistical power at 90 queries. The evaluation of the guardrail on 30 adversarial queries demonstrates Safety F1 of 0.89, correctly refusing 86% of unsafe queries while maintaining 93% coverage of benign queries. These results show that production-ready LLM systems for institutional policy guidance require rethinking standard RAG patterns to prioritize safety, transparency, and departmental autonomy over conversational sophistication.

University Academic Management Information Systems (ACMIS) are high-value targets for a wide spectrum of security threats including brute-force login attacks, payment fraud, privilege escalation, insider data theft, and academic integrity violations. Traditional rule-based intrusion detection systems are inadequate because many malicious activities are structurally indistinguishable from normal operations. This paper presents an AI-based security agent for ACMIS that combines supervised anomaly detection, behavioural analytics, and a natural language processing chatbot for secure password recovery. The agent monitors five operational layers: authentication, authorisation, financial transactions, user behaviour, and system health, and responds through a four-tier risk escalation framework. A modular architecture allows the core engine to be extended to other institutional systems. Experiments on a simulated ACMIS event log dataset of 147,922 sessions demonstrate a threat detection macro-average F1 of 0.966, compared to 0.156 for a rule-based baseline and 0.836 for a sequence-only (LSTM) baseline, with end-to-end critical-tier automated response latency under 1 ms on a single-node prototype. The integrated recovery chatbot achieves 97.1 percent identity verification accuracy and an 87.3 percent mass-reset attack detection rate with zero false positives on legitimate high volume recovery periods.

Universities have responded to generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in noticeably different ways, both internationally and within Spain. So far, the dominant reaction has been defensive, this is, most institutions frame the debate around AI detection, plagiarism, academic integrity and a presumed drop in student effort, prioritizing basic training for academic staff over students. Other group of pioneering universities is doing the opposite, pursuing deeper adoption, and assuming that any policy built on prevention or sanction will not hold. This paper sides with that second view. Obsessing about detection is a dead end, since generated text is increasingly hard to distinguish from human writing, and detectors still misfire too often to be trusted. What universities need instead is a coordinated effort to set clear, course-by-course rules for GenAI use, redesign assessment toward authentic and interdisciplinary assessment that fosters critical thinking and learner autonomy, and build a serious AI-literacy programme that treats students as critical co-creators rather than passive users. The challenge, though, is not only pedagogical. Adoption at university scale also raises organisational, technical, operational, legal and economic questions that have to be solved together. In this context, the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) is developing a strategic and sustainable AI policy and adoption framework structured around six dimensions, in which AI functions as an enabler of student autonomy and pedagogical innovation rather than as a threat to be policed.

The correct sequence of courses in the curriculum based on prerequisites between courses is of great importance for students to develop their knowledge and skills holistically. However, students crafting this sequence in isolation frequently struggle with recognition limitations and information overload that leads to confusion. Simultaneously, education institutions encounter difficulties in providing adequate academic advice for the correct sequence due to limited education resources. To address these challenges, we propose a locally deployed RAG-based academic advising system grounded in syllabus information. By combining large language models with retrieval from structured syllabus data, the system is designed to support course selection, prerequisite understanding, and personalized study planning in a privacy-preserving manner.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support scientific work, but it is unclear whether they uphold responsible conduct of research (RCR) norms or help undermine them. We introduce SciIntBench, an adversarial benchmark of 810 prompts across ten RCR categories and three scientific domains. Each scenario appears as an Overt Adversarial, Covert Adversarial, and Benign version, allowing us to jointly measure framing-sensitive refusal of misconduct and helpfulness on legitimate requests. We evaluate 16 commercial and open-weight LLMs from six providers (2024--2026), producing 12,960 responses. We find that scientific integrity alignment is strongly framing-sensitive: models refuse explicit misconduct far more reliably than covert violations, especially failing when misconduct is presented as a pressure-driven shortcut. Refusals vary by RCR category, with weaker boundaries around transparency, plagiarism, and fabrication.

AI scientist systems are increasingly deployed for autonomous research, yet their academic integrity has never been systematically evaluated. We introduce SCIINTEGRITY-BENCH, the first benchmark designed around a dilemmatic evaluation paradigm: each of its 33 scenarios across 11 trap categories is constructed so that honest acknowledgment of failure is the only correct response, while task completion requires misconduct. Across 231 evaluation runs spanning 7 state-of-the-art LLMs, the overall integrity problem rate reaches 34.2%, and no model achieves zero failures. Most strikingly, across missing-data scenarios, all seven models generate synthetic data rather than acknowledging infeasibility, differing only in whether they disclose the substitution. A further prompt ablation study separates two drivers: removing explicit completion pressure sharply reduces undisclosed fabrication from 20.6% to 3.2%, while the underlying synthesis rate remains unchanged, revealing an intrinsic completion bias that persists independent of prompt-level instructions. These findings point to the absence of honest refusal as a trained disposition as the primary driver of observed failures. We release SCIINTEGRITY-BENCH at https://github.com/liuxingtong/Sci-Integrity-Bench.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to brainstorm and evaluate research ideas, yet assessing such judgments is fundamentally difficult because the true impact of a new idea may take years to emerge. We address this challenge by using the impact forecasting of human-authored manuscripts as a verifiable proxy task. In a prospective forecasting study, we find that frontier LLMs fail to reliably distinguish high-impact papers from ordinary publications, suggesting that static text-based judging is insufficient for scientific evaluation. To address this limitation, we propose $\textbf{FAME}$ ($\underline{\text{F}}$orecasting $\underline{\text{A}}$cademic Impact via Continuous-Time $\underline{\text{M}}$anifold $\underline{\text{E}}$volution), a spatiotemporal framework for modeling the dynamic trajectories of scientific topics. FAME projects papers into a dynamic latent space informed by textual features and a verified knowledge-flow graph, learning geometric constraints that align impactful manuscripts with the forward momentum of their fields. Experiments on 3,200 arXiv papers across three fast-evolving subfields show that FAME consistently and substantially outperforms state-of-the-art LLM evaluators in prospective multidimensional impact forecasting. Furthermore, integrating FAME's dynamic geometric signals into LLMs significantly improves their forecasting performance. These results support manuscript impact forecasting as a useful, measurable proxy benchmark and position FAME as a strong, trajectory-aware foundation for automated scientific evaluation.

Source Code Plagiarism Detection (SCPD) plays an important role in maintaining fairness and academic integrity in software engineering education. Code Evaluation Metrics (CEMs) are developed for assessing code generation tasks. However, it remains unclear whether such metrics can reliably detect plagiarism across different levels of modification (L1-L6), increasing in complexity. In this paper, we perform a comparative empirical study using two open-source labelled datasets, ConPlag (raw and template-free versions) and IRPlag. We evaluate five CEMs, namely CodeBLEU, CrystalBLEU, RUBY, Tree Structured Edit Distance (TSED), and CodeBERTScore. The performance is evaluated using threshold-free ranking-based measures to assess overall, per dataset, and per-level plagiarism performance. The results are compared against state-of-the-art (SOTA) Source Code Plagiarism Detection Tools (SCPDTs), JPlag and Dolos. Our findings show that without preprocessing, Dolos achieves the highest overall ranking performance, while among the individual metrics, CrystalBLEU, CodeBLEU, and RUBY outperform JPlag. Performance is strongest at L1 and drops from L4 onward, while CrystalBLEU remains competitive on L6. With preprocessing, CrystalBLEU surpasses Dolos overall. Per dataset, Dolos achieved the best ranking on the ConPlag raw dataset, while CrystalBLEU was the best-performing metric on the remaining datasets. At the plagiarism levels, Dolos remains strongest on L4, while Crystal-BLEU leads most of the remaining difficult levels. These results indicate that CEMs are comparable to dedicated tools in terms of ranking metrics.

Student engagement with large language models (LLMs) in academic writing is not a stable trait, an adoption decision, or a competency level; it is a continuously negotiated process that existing frameworks cannot adequately theorize. Typological models provide categories without mechanisms; technology acceptance models explain adoption but not post-adoption quality; AI literacy frameworks treat competency as a static predictor rather than a live input. None accounts for within-student variability across tasks, the developmental paradox whereby experience produces habituation rather than sophistication, or principled non-use as a form of ethical reasoning. This article introduces the Reliance Negotiation Framework (RNF), developed from a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study of 382 undergraduates at a public minority-serving institution in the United States (survey, N = 382; 14 semi-structured interviews; three qualitative survey strands; 1,435 coded instances). The RNF reconceptualizes LLM reliance as an ongoing negotiation among four concurrent inputs (perceived benefits, perceived risks, ethical commitments, and situational demands) with outputs that recursively modify subsequent decisions. A Two-Model Architecture accommodates the 13.0% of participants whose categorical ethical commitments foreclose negotiation entirely. The framework generates four falsifiable predictions with implications for AI literacy pedagogy, academic integrity policy, and equity-centered practice at minority-serving institutions.

Academic integrity continues to face the persistent challenge of examination cheating. Traditional invigilation relies on human observation, which is inefficient, costly, and prone to errors at scale. Although some existing AI-powered monitoring systems have been deployed and trusted, many lack transparency or require multi-layered architectures to achieve the desired performance. To overcome these challenges, we propose an improvement over a simple two-stage framework for exam cheating detection that integrates object detection and behavioral analysis using well-known technologies. First, the state-of-the-art YOLOv8n model is used to localize students in exam-room images. Each detected region is cropped and preprocessed, then classified by a fine-tuned RexNet-150 model as either normal or cheating behavior. The system is trained on a dataset compiled from 10 independent sources with a total of 273,897 samples, achieving 0.95 accuracy, 0.94 recall, 0.96 precision, and 0.95 F1-score - a 13% increase over a baseline accuracy of 0.82 in video-based cheating detection. In addition, with an average inference time of 13.9 ms per sample, the proposed approach demonstrates robustness and scalability for deployment in large-scale environments. Beyond the technical contribution, the AI-assisted monitoring system also addresses ethical concerns by ensuring that final outcomes are delivered privately to individual students after the examination, for example, via personal email. This prevents public exposure or shaming and offers students an opportunity to reflect on their behavior. For further improvement, it is possible to incorporate additional factors, such as audio data and consecutive frames, to achieve greater accuracy. This study provides a foundation for developing real-time, scalable, ethical, and open-source solutions.

A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews. But, are these policies enforceable? To answer this question, we assemble a dataset of peer reviews simulating multiple levels of human-AI collaboration, and evaluate five state-of-the-art detectors, including two commercial systems. Our analysis shows that all detectors misclassify a non-trivial fraction of LLM-polished reviews as AI-generated, thereby risking false accusations of academic misconduct. We further investigate whether peer-review-specific signals, including access to the paper manuscript and the constrained domain of scientific writing, can be leveraged to improve detection. While incorporating such signals yields measurable gains in some settings, we identify limitations in each approach and find that none meets the accuracy standards required for identifying AI use in peer reviews. Importantly, our results suggest that recent public estimates of AI use in peer reviews through the use of AI-text detectors should be interpreted with caution, as current detectors misclassify mixed reviews (collaborative human-AI outputs) as fully AI generated, potentially overstating the extent of policy violations.

Artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs) are transforming educational technology by enabling conversational tutoring, personalised explanations, and inquiry-driven learning. However, most AI-based learning systems rely on continuous internet connectivity and cloud-based computation, limiting their use in bandwidth-constrained environments. This paper presents Arapai, an offline-first large language model architecture designed for AI-assisted learning in low-connectivity settings. The system performs all inference locally using quantized language models and incorporates hardware-aware model selection to enable deployment on low-specification, CPU-only devices. By removing dependence on cloud infrastructure, the system provides curriculum-aligned explanations and structured academic support through natural-language interaction. To support learners at different educational stages, the system includes adaptive response levels that generate explanations at varying levels of complexity: Simple English, Lower Secondary, Upper Secondary, and Technical. The system was evaluated with 120 students and 9 instructors from secondary and tertiary institutions under limited-connectivity conditions. Results indicate stable operation on legacy hardware, acceptable response times of 1-3 seconds for typical queries, and positive user perceptions of its effectiveness in supporting self-directed learning.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT, Copilot, or Gemini have a crucial impact on academic research and teaching. Empirical data on how students perceive the increasing influence of AI, which different types of tools they use, what they expect from them in their daily academic tasks, and their concerns regarding the use of AI in their studies are still limited. The manuscript presents findings from a quantitative survey conducted among sports students of all semesters in Germany using an online questionnaire. It explores aspects such as students' usage behavior, motivational factors, and uncertainties regarding the impact of AI tools on academia in the future. Furthermore, the social climate in sports studies is being investigated to provide a general overview of the current situation of the students in Germany. Data collection took place between August and November 2023, addressing all sports departments at German universities, with a total of 262 students participating. Our Findings indicate that students have a strong interest in using AI tools in their studies, expecting them to improve their overall academic performance, understand the complexity of scientific approaches, and save time. They express confidence that the proliferation of AI will not compromise their critical thinking skills. Moreover, students are positive about integrating more AI-related topics into the curriculum and about lecturers adopting more AI-based teaching methods. However, our findings also show that students have concerns about plagiarism, lecturer preparedness and their own skills and future skill development.