Providing feedback is an integral part of teaching. Most open online courses on programming make use of automated grading systems to support programming assignments and give real-time feedback. These systems usually rely on test results to quantify the programs' functional correctness. They return failing tests to the students as feedback. However, students may find it difficult to debug their programs if they receive no hints about where the bug is and how to fix it. In this work, we present NeuralBugLocator, a deep learning based technique, that can localize the bugs in a faulty program with respect to a failing test, without even running the program. At the heart of our technique is a novel tree convolutional neural network which is trained to predict whether a program passes or fails a given test. To localize the bugs, we analyze the trained network using a state-of-the-art neural prediction attribution technique and see which lines of the programs make it predict the test outcomes. Our experiments show that NeuralBugLocator is generally more accurate than two state-of-the-art program-spectrum based and one syntactic difference based bug-localization baselines.

ORCID: 0000 -0003-2811-1194 Abstract --As design thinking education is growing in secondary and tertiary education, educators face a mounting challenge of evaluating creative artefacts that comprise visual and textual elements. Traditional, rubric-based methods of assessment are laborious, time-consuming, and inconsistent, due to their reliance on Teaching Assistants (TAs) in large, multi - section cohorts. This paper presents an exploratory study to investigate the reliability and perceived accuracy of AI -assisted assessment vis -à -vis TA-assisted assessment in evaluating student posters in design thinking education. Two activities were conducted with 33 Ministry of Education (MOE), Singapore school teachers, with the objective (1) to compare AI -generated scores with TA grading across three key dimensions: empathy and user understanding, identification of pain points and opportunities, and visual communication, and (2) to understand teacher preferences for AI-assigned, TA-assigned, and hybrid scores. Results showed low statistical agreement between instructor and AI scores for empathy and pain points, though slightly higher alignment for visual communication. Teachers generally preferred TA -assigned scores in six of ten samples. Qualitative feedback highlighted AI's potential for formative feedback, consistency, and student self -reflection, but raised concerns about its limitations in capturing contextual nuance and creative insight. The study underscores the need for hybrid assessment models that integrate computational efficiency with human insights . This research contributes to the evolving conversation around responsible AI adoption in creative disciplines, emphasizing the balance between automation and human judgment for scalable and pedagogically sound assessment practices. Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer's toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success. It is a non - linear, iterative process that teams use to understand users, challenge assumptions, redefine problems, and create innovative solutions to prototype and test.

Constructed-response questions are crucial to encourage generative processing and test a learner's understanding of core concepts. However, the limited availability of instructor time, large class sizes, and other resource constraints pose significant challenges in providing timely and detailed evaluation, which is crucial for a holistic educational experience. In addition, providing timely and frequent assessments is challenging since manual grading is labor intensive, and automated grading is complex to generalize to every possible response scenario. This paper proposes a novel and practical approach to grade short-answer constructed-response questions. We discuss why this problem is challenging, define the nature of questions on which our method works, and finally propose a framework that instructors can use to evaluate their students' open-responses, utilizing near-domain data like data from similar questions administered in previous years. The proposed method outperforms the state of the art machine learning models as well as non-fine-tuned large language models like GPT 3.5, GPT 4, and GPT 4o by a considerable margin of over 10-20% in some cases, even after providing the LLMs with reference/model answers. Our framework does not require pre-written grading rubrics and is designed explicitly with practical classroom settings in mind. Our results also reveal exciting insights about learning from near-domain data, including what we term as accuracy and data advantages using human-labeled data, and we believe this is the first work to formalize the problem of automated short answer grading based on the near-domain data.

We introduce Bin2Vec, a new framework that helps compare software programs in a clear and explainable way. Instead of focusing only on one type of information, Bin2Vec combines what a program looks like (its built-in functions, imports, and exports) with how it behaves when it runs (its instructions and memory usage). This gives a more complete picture when deciding whether two programs are similar or not. Bin2Vec represents these different types of information as views that can be inspected separately using easy-to-read charts, and then brings them together into an overall similarity score. Bin2Vec acts as a bridge between binary representations and machine learning techniques by generating feature representations that can be efficiently processed by machine-learning models. We tested Bin2Vec on multiple versions of two well-known Windows programs, PuTTY and 7-Zip. The primary results strongly confirmed that our method compute an optimal and visualization-friendly representation of the analyzed software. For example, PuTTY versions showed more complex behavior and memory activity, while 7-Zip versions focused more on performance-related patterns. Overall, Bin2Vec provides decisions that are both reliable and explainable to humans. Because it is modular and easy to extend, it can be applied to tasks like auditing, verifying software origins, or quickly screening large numbers of programs in cybersecurity and reverse-engineering work.

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, particularly large language models (LLMs), has brought significant advancements to the field of education. Among various applications, automatic short answer grading (ASAG), which focuses on evaluating open-ended textual responses, has seen remarkable progress with the introduction of LLMs. These models not only enhance grading performance compared to traditional ASAG approaches but also move beyond simple comparisons with predefined "golden" answers, enabling more sophisticated grading scenarios, such as rubric-based evaluation. However, existing LLM-powered methods still face challenges in achieving human-level grading performance in rubric-based assessments due to their reliance on fully automated approaches. In this work, we explore the potential of LLMs in ASAG tasks by leveraging their interactive capabilities through a human-in-the-loop (HITL) approach. Our proposed framework, GradeHITL, utilizes the generative properties of LLMs to pose questions to human experts, incorporating their insights to refine grading rubrics dynamically. This adaptive process significantly improves grading accuracy, outperforming existing methods and bringing ASAG closer to human-level evaluation.

Formative feedback is widely recognized as one of the most effective drivers of student learning, yet it remains difficult to implement equitably at scale. In large or low-resource courses, instructors often lack the time, staffing, and bandwidth required to review and respond to every student reflection, creating gaps in support precisely where learners would benefit most. This paper presents a theory-grounded system that uses five coordinated role-based LLM agents (Evaluator, Equity Monitor, Metacognitive Coach, Aggregator, and Reflexion Reviewer) to score learner reflections with a shared rubric and to generate short, bias-aware, learner-facing comments. The agents first produce structured rubric scores, then check for potentially biased or exclusionary language, add metacognitive prompts that invite students to think about their own thinking, and finally compose a concise feedback message of at most 120 words. The system includes simple fairness checks that compare scoring error across lower and higher scoring learners, enabling instructors to monitor and bound disparities in accuracy. We evaluate the pipeline in a 12-session AI literacy program with adult learners. In this setting, the system produces rubric scores that approach expert-level agreement, and trained graders rate the AI-generated comments as helpful, empathetic, and well aligned with instructional goals. Taken together, these results show that multi-agent LLM systems can deliver equitable, high-quality formative feedback at a scale and speed that would be impossible for human graders alone. More broadly, the work points toward a future where feedback-rich learning becomes feasible for any course size or context, advancing long-standing goals of equity, access, and instructional capacity in education.

Automated scoring of written constructed responses typically relies on separate models per task, straining computational resources, storage, and maintenance in real-world education settings. We propose UniMoE-Guided, a knowledge-distilled multi-task Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) approach that transfers expertise from multiple task-specific large models (teachers) into a single compact, deployable model (student). The student combines (i) a shared encoder for cross-task representations, (ii) a gated MoE block that balances shared and task-specific processing, and (iii) lightweight task heads. Trained with both ground-truth labels and teacher guidance, the student matches strong task-specific models while being far more efficient to train, store, and deploy. Beyond efficiency, the MoE layer improves transfer and generalization: experts develop reusable skills that boost cross-task performance and enable rapid adaptation to new tasks with minimal additions and tuning. On nine NGSS-aligned science-reasoning tasks (seven for training/evaluation and two held out for adaptation), UniMoE-Guided attains performance comparable to per-task models while using $\sim$6$\times$ less storage than maintaining separate students, and $87\times$ less than the 20B-parameter teacher. The method offers a practical path toward scalable, reliable, and resource-efficient automated scoring for classroom and large-scale assessment systems.

The evaluation of academic theses is a cornerstone of higher education, ensuring rigor and integrity. Traditional methods, though effective, are time-consuming and subject to evaluator variability. This paper presents RubiSCoT, an AI-supported framework designed to enhance thesis evaluation from proposal to final submission. Using advanced natural language processing techniques, including large language models, retrieval-augmented generation, and structured chain-of-thought prompting, RubiSCoT offers a consistent, scalable solution. The framework includes preliminary assessments, multidimensional assessments, content extraction, rubric-based scoring, and detailed reporting. We present the design and implementation of RubiSCoT, discussing its potential to optimize academic assessment processes through consistent, scalable, and transparent evaluation.

Automated Essay Scoring (AES) and Automatic Essay Feedback (AEF) systems aim to reduce the workload of human raters in educational assessment. However, most existing systems prioritize numerical scoring accuracy over feedback quality and are primarily evaluated on pre-secondary school level writing. This paper presents Multi-Agent Argumentation and Grammar Integrated Critiquer (MAGIC), a framework using five specialized agents to evaluate prompt adherence, persuasiveness, organization, vocabulary, and grammar for both holistic scoring and detailed feedback generation. To support evaluation at the college level, we collated a dataset of Graduate Record Examination (GRE) practice essays with expert-evaluated scores and feedback. MAGIC achieves substantial to near-perfect scoring agreement with humans on the GRE data, outperforming baseline LLM models while providing enhanced interpretability through its multi-agent approach. We also compare MAGIC's feedback generation capabilities against ground truth human feedback and baseline models, finding that MAGIC achieves strong feedback quality and naturalness.

We propose MelodySim, a melody-aware music similarity model and dataset for plagiarism detection. First, we introduce a novel method to construct a dataset focused on melodic similarity. By augmenting Slakh2100, an existing MIDI dataset, we generate variations of each piece while preserving the melody through modifications such as note splitting, arpeggiation, minor track dropout, and re-instrumentation. A user study confirms that positive pairs indeed contain similar melodies, while other musical tracks are significantly changed. Second, we develop a segment-wise melodic-similarity detection model that uses a MERT encoder and applies a triplet neural network to capture melodic similarity. The resulting decision matrix highlights where plagiarism might occur. The experiments show that our model is able to outperform baseline models in detecting similar melodic fragments on the MelodySim test set.