Computer Science

Retrieved scientific literature can serve as inspiration for both human and AI scientists. Inspiration can take different forms: prior work may directly suggest how to address a problem, or surface directions at different levels of abstraction - zooming out to a more general view or zooming in to a concrete realization. We introduce RATIO (Retrieval Across Typed Ideation Operations), a large-scale benchmark in which relevance is defined by three operations which we name ideation moves: Address retrieves potential approaches for stated problems, Broaden retrieves more general formulations, and Specify retrieves concrete instantiations. RATIO is constructed from millions of full-text scientific papers across CS literature via a general recipe that extends discourse-marker distant supervision - previously used only for classification - to corpus-scale retrieval, combined with extensive LLM and human vetting. Experiments show that operation-specific fine-tuning substantially boosts retrievers but leaves much room for further improvements. RATIO provides a scalable training and evaluation framework for retrieval components that support literature-grounded ideation, opening up new research avenues on scientific inspiration retrieval.

We introduce TCS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on research-level Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) proof generation. TCS-Bench consists of theorem-proving tasks from papers published at top theoretical computer science venues (STOC, FOCS, and SODA). Each task provides the necessary context to derive a self-contained proof for a target result. We evaluate state-of-the-art models on this benchmark. We verify the correctness of generated proofs via a verification agent, and further benchmark the verifier against human-expert proof judgements on a set of target statements and generated proofs pairs. Our reference verifier achieves over 90% accuracy on the expert labeled set.

Student mobility programs such as Erasmus+ enable students to take courses at other universities, broadening their academic and cultural horizons. However, this flexibility also leads to a practical challenge: ensuring that students do not take courses elsewhere that substantially overlap with courses in their home curriculum. In this work, we propose CourseGraph, a methodology that automates the evaluation of external courses based on insights obtained from the process followed by curriculum administrators when assessing courses for inclusion in a degree program. Course- Graph extracts information such as course titles, descriptions, and learning outcomes from the course webpage. Then, this information is represented semantically using a BERT-based language model, after which the pair-wise similarity between courses can be computed. This information is then used by a Random Forest classifier to determine whether a candidate course abroad overlaps with a course already contained in the student's curriculum. We evaluate CourseGraph using (1) the Computer Science program at Eindhoven University of Technology, which contains information about courses with substantial overlap, and (2) six approved international programs from students enrolled in the Computer Science program at Lund University, including the corresponding decisions made by a curriculum administrator. The experimental results indicate that CourseGraph provides an effective approach for identifying overlapping courses and supporting curriculum alignment across universities.

The rapid adoption of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in software engineering (SE) practice creates a need for pedagogically grounded approaches to AI integration in SE education, especially in conceptually intensive subjects such as requirements engineering (RE). This study examines a TPACK-guided integration of a multi-agent AI tool into a master-level RE assignment on requirements quality analysis. Using a mixed-methods design (N=100; 72 submissions analysed), we examine how structured assignment design shaped students' AI use, affected their understanding of user story quality criteria, and influenced their perceptions of AI's benefits and limitations. Results show that students used the AI tool selectively, mainly as support for analysis and evaluation rather than automation. Alignment improvements were most evident for structurally concrete requirements quality dimensions, such as value articulation and testability, while negotiability showed mixed effects. Students reported conditional trust, active refinement, and increased awareness of quality criteria, alongside moderate usability challenges. The findings show that TPACK-guided scaffolding can align AI affordances with pedagogical goals and RE content, offering design guidance for responsible AI integration in RE education.

Existing singing voice synthesis systems often require predefined durations, explicit duration prediction, or time-aligned acoustic guidance, which limits their compatibility with practical composition workflows. We propose VocalRender, a score-native system that directly synthesizes singing from lyrics, pitches, symbolic note values, and tempo. It uses an interleaved lyric--note representation and an autoregressive diffusion model to generate continuous acoustic latents while predicting the output length, eliminating the need for explicit duration prediction. Trained on a 2,300-hour singing dataset, VocalRender achieves strong intelligibility, strong melody control, and high speaker similarity across both in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks. Notably, it outperforms the strongest baseline by $0.42$ points in naturalness CMOS, demonstrating the effectiveness of our proposed score-native architecture.

As Generative AI (GenAI) tools become increasingly capable of generating solutions to computing assignments, the computing education community is exploring pedagogical approaches that emphasize solution evaluation, verification, and critique alongside traditional solution generation. However, evidence regarding the impact of such evaluation-centered tasks on student learning remains limited, particularly in upper-division, theory-heavy courses. We conducted a randomized A/B crossover study (N=220) in a junior-level algorithms course to compare evaluating GenAI-generated solutions with traditional problem solving. Across six assignments, student working groups either solved challenging algorithmic problems directly or evaluated often-flawed GenAI-generated solutions, with roles reversed midway through the semester. We found no statistically significant differences between groups in midterm scores, final exam scores, overall course grades, or exam problems structurally aligned with the homework interventions. Students received significantly higher homework scores when evaluating GenAI-generated solutions, but this localized advantage did not translate into downstream summative gains. Survey data further indicated that most students reported no change in study habits in response to the intervention; however, those who reported adapting their study strategies rated the GenAI-evaluation assignments as significantly more helpful. These findings suggest that GenAI evaluation redistributes student effort from open-ended solution construction toward verification, diagnosis, and judgment, but does not automatically produce stronger conceptual transfer. We conclude that GenAI-evaluation activities can be incorporated into algorithms coursework without broad performance losses, but meaningful learning gains may require deliberate scaffolding that pushes students beyond simple error diagnosis.

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.

This full paper in the research-to-practice track presents methods for assessing student teams in tabletop exercises (TTXs). TTXs enable learner teams to prepare for workplace tasks and practice crisis responses, such as resolving cybersecurity incidents. While assessment is essential for determining how well teams achieve learning objectives, the complex, open-ended nature of TTXs often leads to delayed or incomplete feedback. TTX learning platforms can record teams' actions and communication; yet, leveraging these data to assess performance is underexplored. To address this gap, we compared two post-TTX team assessment methods -- clustering and large language models (LLMs) -- using an original dataset from 81 participants across two countries. We evaluated these methods against instructor-assigned scores based on standardized rubrics. Clustering grouped teams that approached TTX tasks similarly, enabling instructors to deliver faster, targeted feedback to teams within a cluster. This method was valid and reliable, with low computational requirements. LLMs used the standardized rubrics to assess teams' communication. While GPT-4o frequently disagreed with instructor scores, GPT-5.2 demonstrated considerably lower error. The researched methods have been integrated into INJECT, an open-source TTX learning platform, to support scalability and teaching practice. To encourage community adoption, we publicly share all datasets, software tools, and a full-fledged TTX scenario.

We propose a chaos-inspired new architecture for EMG-to-Speech (ETS) synthesis called CS-ETS, which combines a Samba-based encoder with two novel chaos-inspired loss functions -- Lyapunov Exponent Regularization (LER) and Multi-Scale Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (MSDFA). LER is designed based on Lyapunov exponents to capture nonlinear fluctuations and sensitivity to initial conditions. MSDFA exploits detrended fluctuation analysis to quantify fractal-like, long-range temporal chaotic correlation. CS-ETS surpasses prior work with a 40.79% lower parameter count (32M vs 54.1M) and introduces a new Post-Vocoder Alignment approach that improves LSD by 2.1x, STOI by 4.7x, and SI-SDR by 1.25x. CS-ETS reduces computation by 13.33% while maintaining improved performance. To the best of our knowledge, for the first time, we show how ETS can be supervised by the subtle non-linear chaotic physics with Samba attention to achieve a significantly smaller model with superior performance.

With the increased use of generative AI (GenAI) applications such as ChatGPT, higher education institutions (HEIs) have released a range of guidelines and policies to direct adoption within their institutions. In computer science (CS) courses GenAI adoption is especially high and the implications for student learning are significant. At the same time, instructors have also been forced to address the use of GenAI as students have started to use it for a range of functions. Currently, comparative analysis of guidance provided by institutions and its uptake in instruction is lacking. In this paper we bridge this gap by comparing institutional and computing course level guidance to better understand this terrain. We utilize secondary analysis of institutional and course syllabi guidelines from higher education institutions in the U.S. classified as research-intensive. Our findings reveal that although institutional guidance is more pro-use, at the course-level the uptake is still guarded. We discuss the implications and propose an instructor-centered framework to guide future adoption of GenAI.

The promise of AI literacy ``for all'' confronts a structural challenge embedded in how nations organise secondary computer science education. In most systems, a general-track subject -- Digital Literacy, ICT, TIC, or SNT -- bears the weight of universal AI literacy, while a specialist Informatics course serves STEM pathways separately. Yet the content and depth of the general track are shaped by governance decisions made largely with reference to the specialist one. This paper presents a comparative analysis of curricula and examination frameworks across fifteen countries, identifying two structural challenges. First, in several systems a significant portion of students completes secondary education without any formal programming exposure. Second, among those who do receive CS education, a \emph{Syntax Ceiling} emerges: Python-based instruction reaches most students, while the algorithmic depth associated with C++ remains concentrated in elite STEM tracks. Drawing on reform cases spanning centralised mandates (France, China, Japan), assessment-driven systems (Poland, Romania, South Korea), and recent universal reforms (Switzerland, Kazakhstan), we show that governance structures and high-stakes examinations are the primary drivers of both challenges -- and that specialist and general-track language choices are rarely independent, linked through shared teacher pipelines that curriculum policy seldom acknowledges. Achieving genuine AI literacy for all requires confronting not just curriculum content, but the access architectures and resource constraints that determine who receives it -- and at what depth.

As AI code tools become integrated into programming environments, students increasingly describe intended behavior in natural language and rely on these tools to generate code, shifting emphasis from code writing to specification. Yet little is known about the comments students write as specifications in AI-assisted programming tasks. We analyze a four-year dataset of undergraduate programming submissions and reflections from tasks in which students wrote comments to guide code generation and refined solutions using test-case feedback. We introduce a taxonomy spanning three dimensions: comment type, code expression level, and code construct. Using automated classification, we examine how these dimensions vary across attempts and how students describe the process in their reflections. Our findings show that students mostly wrote natural-language What comments, shifted toward How comments for more procedural constructs, and focused more on verifying generated code than on repeatedly rewriting comments.

As computing education expands beyond traditional programming into operational domains such as systems administration and command-line environments, existing pedagogical frameworks struggle to capture a dimension that is critical in these contexts: the real-world consequences of learner actions. Existing cognitive taxonomies classify learning objectives by mental operations but do not account for system impact, leaving a critical gap in command-line education where conceptually simple commands can have severe consequences. This work presents CogTax, a four-level cognitive taxonomy that integrates two dimensions: cognitive complexity, derived from Bloom's Revised Taxonomy, and operational impact, which distinguishes observational, reversible, structural, and administrative operations. The four progressive levels range from safe read-only inspection to advanced system management requiring integration of multiple abstract models. Then, the taxonomy level is defined as the maximum of these dimensions, ensuring that both conceptual understanding and operational awareness are addressed. CogTax gives instructors a principled framework for sequencing course material and calibrating assessment difficulty, and gives students an explicit reference for self-assessment and gap identification. To demonstrate that taxonomy levels are automatically assignable, making the framework scalable without manual expert annotation, a classifier that combines syntactic representations derived from abstract syntax trees with semantic embeddings is trained. Evaluated on 585 expert-annotated Linux/bash commands, this combined approach achieves 89% accuracy, outperforming either representation alone, and demonstrates cross-language extensibility through structural equivalences across command languages.

AI code completion tools, such as Github Copilot, provide students with code suggestions to help them write programs. However, recent qualitative studies suggest that students fail to critically evaluate these suggestions. We present Clover, a code completion tool that logs students' interactions with code suggestions and additionally offers attention checks to probe reflective engagement during programming tasks. We also develop a taxonomy of behavioral interaction metrics for AI-assisted programming, informed by literature. We analyzed relationships between interaction patterns, engagement with attention checks, and task performance. We observed that higher rates of tab accept were associated with lower attention check performance, while increased dwell time was associated with higher attention check performance. We conclude by discussing how programming process data and attention checks might support reflective engagement in AI-assisted programming.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown the potential to generate code explanations that surpass those of peers in quality, offering promising opportunities for computer science education. While these explanations may not yet match the depth and clarity of instructor-provided explanations, research in computational creativity highlights that the quantity and diversity of ideas can often outweigh a singular focus on quality. Inspired by this, we explore whether combining multiple diverse explanations, each emphasizing distinct aspects (e.g., function, concept, goal), can enhance students' understanding of programming exercises compared to generic explanations that do not emphasize distinct conceptual aspects. In our study 971 first-year computing students were randomly assigned either diverse or generic LLM-generated explanations for two programming exercises. Students completed multiple-choice and open-ended questions for each exercise, followed by Likert-scale questions and open-ended reflections. Our findings outline patterns in student performance and perceived cognitive load across the two explanation conditions. These findings highlight how variation in explanation emphasis may relate to learner engagement and understanding. Across participants, open-ended response accuracy was consistently about 7.7% higher when students received diverse explanations, with no difference in perceived cognitive load.

Team roles offer an interpretable lens on collaboration, yet computational studies of roles often rely on domain-specific personas or data-driven clustering rather than theory-grounded taxonomies. We operationalize a taxonomy of eight communication roles grounded in education literature and annotate a corpus of 6,307 Slack messages from 55 students across 18 teams in a semester-long computer science course project. We evaluate whether LLMs can approximate expert labels, enabling scalable, taxonomy-driven role annotation. Using these role labels, we characterize role dynamics over teams' lifecycles, finding that different roles peak at different moments and that students enact a more diverse set of roles as projects progress. To evaluate the utility of our role constructs, we use them to predict peer recognition, outperforming lexical, conversational, and LLM-prompting baselines. To assess generalizability beyond the educational context, we apply the same role constructs to a public dataset (DeliData) to predict team performance improvement after deliberation, again exceeding prior performance.

Auto-formalization is critical for scalable formal verification, but existing progress largely focuses on isolated statements, while theory-scale auto-formalization, which coherently translates hundreds of interdependent definitions, lemmas, and theorems, remains open due to challenges in consistency, faithfulness, scalability, and correctness. In this paper, we introduce LCS-Bench, a stand-alone, theory-scale benchmark based on Logics for Computer Science. LCS-Bench is built through a novel semi-automated agentic pipeline that leverages concept graphs, formal signature planning, issue tracking, sorry-filling with counter-example search, complemented by faithfulness review from human experts. The resulting artifact covers 327 textbook items, over 4,076 Lean declarations, and more than 85K lines of Lean code. The dataset supports broad evaluation through a data engine that automatically derives five tracks of evaluation benchmarks, measuring different aspects of auto-formalization and theorem-proving capabilities. We also introduce a novel evaluation protocol featuring definitional equivalence checkers, enabling more fine-grained and faithful assessment. Through extensive evaluation on 14 models, we demonstrate that (1) LCS-Bench is of high quality, consistent, and faithful; (2) the benchmark is challenging, with state-of-the-art models achieving only 20.1% on auto-formalization tasks; and (3) our analysis reveals key findings regarding theory-scale auto-formalization and suggests promising directions for future work.

Undergraduate computer science is governed by international curricular guidelines revised about once a decade, yet programs lack a reliable, reproducible way to measure how completely they cover the current guidelines and how that coverage shifts when the guidelines are restructured. We address this with a human-in-the-loop pipeline that measures a program's coverage of an external body of knowledge, applied longitudinally to one accredited BSc in Computer Science against Computer Science Curricula 2013 (CS2013) and 2023 (CS2023). The pipeline represents the program and each guideline as structured corpora, generates candidate course-to-knowledge-unit matches by semantic retrieval, and confirms them through human judgment under an explicit coverage definition. Of seven benchmarked retrievers, a reciprocal-rank-fusion ensemble was strongest, and a reputed long-context model underperformed a small sentence model, so retriever choice must be measured. Both maps were validated by an independent second rater (Cohen's kappa 0.64 for CS2023, 0.69 for CS2013). The program covers 49.7% of CS2023 and 50.9% of CS2013 knowledge units, near-constant across a decade. Extending the same retrieve-then-confirm design to competency articulation and cognitive depth shows that the program articulates the competency for ~88% of covered units under each guideline, yet delivers it at the recommended depth for 76% of present units under CS2023 against 95% under CS2013, a gap reflecting the newer guideline's raised expectations, not the program. The longitudinal comparison separates persistent structural gaps (parallel and distributed computing, foundations of programming languages, systems fundamentals), uncovered against both guidelines and ABET, from differences that reflect the standard's evolution. The instrument is reusable and available from the authors on request.

AI-native course assessments in senior computer science courses and related fields should grade students by \emph{AI-resilient skill}: the ability to achieve outcomes beyond a strong AI baseline. Such assessments should allow students to use AI freely, while reducing the extent to which greater private AI budget or more intensive AI use, by itself, becomes a grading advantage. This paper proposes a minimal formal framework for this goal. The framework specifies a real task, an executable evaluator, a declared AI-native Pareto frontier, and a grading rule based on Pareto surplus. The central claim is simple: Pareto surplus provides a measurable, protocol-relative certificate that a submitted artifact achieves a tradeoff not already supplied by the declared AI baseline, and grading by this surplus is AI-resilient with respect to that baseline. Interpreting surplus as evidence of student skill requires the surrounding assessment protocol--for example, design reports, ablations, prompt traces, oral checks, or reproducibility explanations--but the grading certificate itself is behavioral and executable. The framework is then extended to practical complications, including self-improving AI loops, budget neutrality, server-mediated feedback, and prompt-based red teaming. As a concrete instantiation, we describe an AI-resilient approximate-membership assignment centered on Bloom filters for COMP 480/580 at Rice University, designed to test whether students can improve beyond AI-generated implementations.

Teaching Software Engineering for AI-enabled systems entails addressing the integration of AI components within full-scale software architectures under realistic constraints. While machine learning courses emphasize model development, students often lack experience in architectural design, deployment, and monitoring of AI-enabled systems. Empirical evaluations of such system-oriented AI courses remain limited. This paper reflects on the design and implementation of a project-based master's-level course titled AI Algorithms: Theory and Engineering, at the University of Bremen, in which students developed a movie recommendation system while making architectural design decisions to address challenges related to scalability, deployment, and evolving requirements. We conducted a mixed-methods study combining analyses of student submissions and questionnaire responses to investigate integration challenges, learning outcomes, and opportunities for improvement. Our results indicate persistent difficulties in early architectural decisions, heterogeneous ML integration, evolving requirements, and data management, largely due to uneven ML and software engineering expertise. From the educator's perspective, the course fostered system-level reasoning and strengthened awareness of data-centric ML practices in AI-enabled systems.

Many undergraduate students in Computer Science (CS) and Software Engineering (SWE) struggle to identify suitable career paths, particularly when their academic performance, abilities, and interests do not fully align. To address this issue, this study proposes an AI-driven Student Assessment and Career Prediction System that integrates a Career Guidance Expert (CGE) system with a Web-Based Student Assessment (WBSA) platform. Within the integrated framework, CGE enhances personalized career recommendations using AI while also assisting students after graduation in identifying suitable jobs, research domains, and higher study opportunities aligned with their skills and interests. The WBSA platform further strengthens interaction between students and faculty through assessments, personalized tasks, mentorship activities, and a secure real-time chat application. The CGE system employs a Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) model trained on real-world academic and extracurricular data collected using the snowball sampling method from the students of universities, achieving a validation accuracy of 94.71% in predicting personalized career paths. A pre-survey was conducted across universities to evaluate the proposed model before deployment. The WBSA system was developed as a modern web application using technologies such as Node.js, Next.js, and PostgreSQL to ensure scalability, responsiveness, and secure data management. The overall system is supported by a secure cloud-based infrastructure, the platform provides reliable performance while assisting graduates to select suitable career path in IT sector. In addition, a post-survey involving both students and faculty was conducted to gather feedback and further improve the overall effectiveness and usability of the system.

Current Generative AI (GenAI) interfaces remain largely constrained to chatbox interaction, which can impose high cognitive demands on users and create substantial barriers for people with intellectual disabilities (ID), including prompt formulation difficulties, response overload, and limited mechanisms to assess information reliability. To explore alternative interaction models for cognitive accessibility, we conducted a cross-disciplinary co-design challenge in which two student cohorts (Computer Science and Industrial Design) developed interface concepts from the same set of functional requirements (e.g., prompt scaffolding, structured output, GUI-based refinement, transparency, and personalization). Comparing the resulting proposals reveals both convergence on foundational requirements (notably initial calibration, proactive prompting, and direct manipulation of response fragments) and complementary contributions that outline a multi-layered support system. Computer Science teams primarily produced structural scaffolding, emphasizing predictability, navigability, and trust through mechanisms such as reliability indicators, explicit sources, and context management for long conversations. Industrial Design teams emphasized experiential scaffolding, focusing on pacing, attention guidance, multimodality, and proactive agency, including step-by-step response flows, focus modes, and assistant-like integrations. We synthesize these findings into a dual-layer scaffolding framework that expands the design space for cognitively accessible GenAI interaction beyond chat-centric models and motivates future work on expert refinement, technical feasibility, and empirical validation with users with ID.

Introductory programming instruction relies on hands-on practice and short learning activities to support mastery of foundational concepts. Although many such learning resources exist, organizing and linking these items in instructionally meaningful ways is challenging without time-intensive expert curation. This study investigates the use of pattern-based Knowledge Components (KCs) to automatically identify code-based learning resources targeting similar concepts. In our approach, pattern-based KCs are extracted from each code sample, and related activities are identified by measuring similarity between the KC sets associated with each activity. By leveraging alignment at the level of semantically important programming patterns, this method supports contextually appropriate and pedagogically useful recommendations. We evaluate our approach on an expert-organized corpus of introductory Python materials in which instructors grouped items into bundles based on conceptual similarity. Results show that our pattern-based KC approach retrieves resources that align with this expert organization, and outperformed representative KC- and embedding-based baselines across standard ranking evaluations. Overall, the framework supports targeted, concept-oriented guidance for programming learners and can help instructors organize, bundle, and recommend instructional content at scale.

Research on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) is rapidly expanding, yet technical progress often lacks human-centered grounding and adequate attention to cultural context. Community-Based Learning, a pedagogy rooted in social work, remains underrepresented in AIED research, particularly within Asia-Pacific contexts. This paper reports on cross-boundary Community-Based Learning where undergraduate students develop AI-enabled solutions for cultural heritage preservation and sustainable development. We examine how community-engaged computing operationalizes human-centered AIED across three dimensions: education, technology, and culture. We contribute a collaborative framework for culturally-aware AIED that fosters multi-stakeholder collaboration while widening participation by dissolving disciplinary silos between social work and computational science.

Large language model (LLM) leaderboards rank AI models using standardized benchmarks and have become highly visible across computer science, despite known limitations in their reliability and robustness. Yet how they shape researchers' actual practice remains empirically uncharted. We address this gap through semi-structured interviews with eight researchers across four computer science subfields, analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. We find a near-universal paradox of pragmatic skepticism: while participants expressed deep distrust of leaderboard rankings, they continued to use them as rough decision-making aids. Peer networks, not leaderboards, emerged as the primary model selection mechanism, and arena-based (human-voting) leaderboards were consistently preferred over static benchmark leaderboards. Leaderboard influence varied sharply across subfields, revealing that disciplinary culture, not individual attitudes, mediates engagement; for instance, NLP researchers faced state-of-the-art comparison pressure while HCI and Systems/Privacy researchers reported none. Across these differences, however, participants converged on cost transparency as the most demanded missing feature (seven of eight). We translate these findings into concrete design recommendations that align evaluation infrastructure with how researchers actually use it, such as task-specific score breakdowns, cost integration, and voter-demographic disclosure.

To verify the robustness of a program or protocol, it is common in the computer science community to rely on the theoretical framework of game theory. In particular, if one seeks to enforce a desired property, or specification, despite an unpredictable environment, a useful abstraction is to model the situation as a two-player zero-sum game. The goal is then to find a strategy for the system that guarantees the specification against any strategy of the environment. However, to model more complex situations, such as multiple systems with different objectives or an environment composed of various agents, the richer framework of multiplayer games must be considered. In this setting, a natural question is to identify equilibria, i.e., strategy profiles that are robust in the sense that no player has an incentive to deviate. The most well-known equilibrium concept is the Nash equilibrium, but several alternatives exist. We study five such notions and, for each of them, we provide complexity results for the constrained existence problem, which consists of deciding whether a given game contains an equilibrium that ensures each player a payoff within a specified interval.

We present a report on the status of undergraduate Artificial Intelligence (AI) programs in the United States in Spring 2026. In so doing, we 1) describe our scraping and mapping tools, which dynamically update to track the state of AI education in the U.S., and 2) create a historic record at a time of great upheaval. The tool we developed, available at https://cicmap.ai, detects, scrapes, and displays data from more than 350 undergraduate AI programs--majors, minors, concentrations, and certificates--at 4-year universities. Our tool searched over 560 institutions to locate these programs, a sample that represents 86% of all undergraduate Computer Science (CS) graduates in the U.S. This tool allows prospective students, guidance counselors, administrators, and faculty to easily access AI program requirements and is designed to continually update as new programs emerge. To the best of our knowledge, this survey represents the most comprehensive snapshot of the state of AI programs in the U.S. to date. With this work we offer three important contributions: 1) a record of AI programs in the U.S. at a time of great upheaval; 2) a tool to explore AI programs and their requirements; and 3) an analysis of the courses required for 66 AI majors and 87 AI minors. Our analysis of majors and minors shows great variability in the size and the requirements of these degrees, but we note two takeaways. First, not all majors require a general AI course, but if they don't, they do require a Machine Learning (ML) course. Second, while more than a third of majors require an Ethics in AI course, just under a quarter of AI minors do.

This paper,from the perspective of a collaborative intelligent computing system formed by combining human-computer interface and collaborative computing programs, discusses the principles of optimized cloud computing technology supported by the combination of an indirect computing model and an indirect formal method. On the basis of systematically reviewing the influence of previous theoretical achievements Turing's computability theory,Kleene's formal theory of small strings,von Neumann's digital computer architecture and Turing's hypothesis on AI judgment on the mainstream general-purpose digital computer paradigm,the author focuses on introducing an indirect computing model and an indirect formal theory compatible with both large and small strings. Using Chinese information data as an example,the design concept of a collaborative intelligent computing system prototype is presented. The significance is that this achievement facilitates optimization of cloud computing from data centers to knowledge centers.

As generative AI and low-code workflow platforms become routine in software practice, a key educational question is whether the next generation of computer engineers will accept these tools as useful, usable, and worthy of sustained engagement. This paper reports a mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of undergraduate computer engineering students' acceptance of AI automation tooling, instantiated through the open-source platform n8n across three identically scripted workshops in Thailand (n = 103). A 12-item, five-point Likert instrument mapped to six TAM/UTAUT constructs - Performance Expectancy (PE), Effort Expectancy (EE), Behavioral Intention (BI), Self-Efficacy (SE), Hedonic Motivation (HM), and Output Quality (OQ) - was complemented by inductive thematic analysis of open-ended feedback. Analyses combined ordinal reliability estimation, bootstrap confidence intervals, non-parametric tests, multiple-comparison-controlled correlations, polychoric dimensionality diagnostics, a common-method-bias check, and between-session comparisons. Acceptance was favorable across all six constructs with large effect sizes, with PE emerging as the strongest construct and HM as the weakest. Dimensionality diagnostics further revealed that canonical TAM/UTAUT sub-facets collapsed into a single general acceptance factor in this short-form post-workshop context, a finding with important methodological and theoretical implications. Qualitative themes converged with the quantitative profile regarding usefulness and enthusiasm but diverged on output quality, revealing a small yet articulate reliability-skeptical minority. The findings support the curricular adoption of AI automation tooling in undergraduate computing education and identify three theory-grounded instructional levers: instruction-sequencing scaffolds, self-efficacy supports, and trust-calibration interventions.

We present a comprehensive evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) on Computer Science (CS) Data Structure examination questions. Our work introduces a new benchmark dataset comprising exam questions from Tel Aviv University (TAU), curated to assess LLMs' abilities in handling closed and multiple-choice questions. We evaluated the performance of OpenAI's GPT 4o and Anthropic's Claude 3.5, popular LLMs, alongside two smaller LLMs, Mathstral 7B and LLaMA 3 8B, across the TAU exams benchmark. Our findings provide insight into the current capabilities of LLMs in CS education.

Code review is central to software engineering education but hard to scale in capstone projects due to tight deadlines, uneven peer feedback, and limited prior experience. We investigate an LLM-as-reviewer integrated directly into GitHub pull requests (human-in-the-loop) across two cohorts (more than 100 students, 2023--2024). Using a mixed-methods design -- GitHub data, reflective reports, and a targeted survey -- we examine engagement and responsiveness as behavioral indicators of self-regulated learning processes. Quantitatively, the 2024 cohort produced more iterative activity (1176 vs. 581 PRs), while technical issues observed in 2023 (227 failed AI attempts) dropped to zero after tool and instructional refinements. Despite different adoption levels (93% vs. 50% of teams using the tool), responsiveness was stable: 32% (2023) and 33% (2024) of successfully AI-reviewed PRs were followed by subsequent commits on the same PR. Qualitatively, students used the LLM's structured comments to focus reviews and discuss code quality, while guidance reduced over-reliance. We contribute: (i) an in-workflow design for an AI reviewer that scaffolds learning while mitigating cognitive offloading; (ii) a repeated cross sectional comparison across two cohorts in authentic settings; (iii) a mixed-methods analysis combining objective GitHub metrics with student self-reports; and (iv) evidence-based pedagogical recommendations for responsible, student-led AI-assisted review.

Determining whether a program terminates is a central problem in computer science. Turing's Halting Problem established termination as undecidable, showing that no algorithm can universally determine termination for all programs and inputs. Hence, verification tools approximate termination, sometimes failing to prove or disprove; these tools rely on problem-specific architectures and are usually tied to particular programming languages. Recent advances in LLMs raise a natural question: To what extent can they reason about program termination? We evaluate frontier LLMs on a diverse set of C programs from the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-Comp) 2025. Our results show that GPT-5 and Claude Sonnet-4.5 achieve scores comparable to top-ranked verification tools (with test-time scaling). However, while models often correctly infer whether programs terminate, they frequently fail to construct a witness as formal proof, revealing a gap between semantic recognition and symbolic proof generation. Performance further degrades as code length increases. Beyond witness automaton graphs, we introduce a divergence-precondition formulation that characterizes non-termination conditions as logical constraints. We hope these findings motivate future research on real-world termination benchmarks, neuro-symbolic approaches that combine LLMs with symbolic verification methods, and, more broadly, LLM reasoning on other undecidable problems.

ArXiv recently prohibited the upload of unpublished review papers to its servers in the Computer Science domain, citing a high prevalence of LLM-generated content in these categories. However, this decision was not accompanied by quantitative evidence. In this work, we investigate this claim by measuring the proportion of LLM-generated content in review vs. non-review research papers in recent years. Using two high-quality detection methods, we find a substantial increase in LLM-generated content across both review and non-review papers, with a higher prevalence in review papers. However, when considering the number of LLM-generated papers published in each category, the estimates of non-review LLM-generated papers are almost six times higher. Furthermore, we find that this policy will affect papers in certain domains far more than others, with the CS subdiscipline Computers & Society potentially facing cuts of 50%. Our analysis provides an evidence-based framework for evaluating such policy decisions, and we release our code to facilitate future investigations at: https://github.com/yanaiela/llm-review-arxiv.

To address the scalability of feedback in computer science while mitigating the privacy and cost limitations of commercial Large Language Models (LLMs), this study evaluates a locally hosted Small Language Model (SLM). We deployed a quantized Llama-3.1, GPT-4, and human instructors across introductory programming (N=176), operating systems (N=80), and a writing seminar (N=7). Mixed-methods analysis of student perceptions reveals that while the local SLM matched commercial LLMs and was rated higher by students for readability and actionability in technical courses, human feedback remained more favoured for highly specialized writing tasks. We demonstrate that local SLMs offer a privacy-preserving, zero-marginal-cost alternative for foundational feedback, supporting a tiered pedagogical framework where AI handles structural guidance while instructors focus on high-level conceptual scaffolding.