Dual submissions, in which identical or substantially similar papers are simultaneously submitted to one or more archival venues, without cross-citation or disclosure, are a growing problem for the AAAI Conference and other scientific publication venues. These submissions increase the burden on the peer-review system and pollute the scientific record. As part of the AAAI-26 review process, we (conference organizers) compared AAAI main-track submissions to nine other archival venues with overlapping review periods. We also searched for dual submissions within the AAAI-26 main track. We employed title+abstract similarity assessment to prioritize highly similar paper pairs for subsequent triage by an LLM-based overlap assessment tool, followed by manual review of the highest severity pairs. Manual review of such pairs led to the desk-rejection of 141 AAAI-26 main-track submissions. We seek to alert future organizers, and the broader artificial intelligence research community, to the enormous growth in dual submissions. The incidence of exact duplicate submissions, which are easy to detect, has been eclipsed by the number of papers that use different words to describe the same contribu
arXiv is the largest open-access repository for scientific literature. When submitting a paper, authors upload the manuscript's source files, from which the final PDF is compiled. These source files are also publicly downloadable, potentially exposing data unrelated to the published paper -- such as figures, documents, or comments -- that may unintentionally reveal confidential information or simply waste storage space. We thus ask ourselves: "What can be found within the source files of arXiv submissions?" We present a longitudinal analysis of ~600,000 submissions appeared on arXiv between 2015--2025. For each submission, we examine the uploaded source files to quantify and characterize data not required for producing the respective PDF. On average, 27% of the data in each submission are unnecessary, totaling >580 GB of redundant content across our dataset. Qualitative inspection reveals the presence of offensive/inappropriate text (e.g., "WTF does this mean?") and experimental details that could disclose ongoing research. We have contacted arXiv's leadership team, as well as the authors of affected papers to alert them of these issues. Finally, we propose recommendations and a
Current Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tutoring systems (AI tutors) are primarily evaluated based on the pedagogical quality of their feedback messages. While important, pedagogy alone is insufficient because it ignores a critical question: what do students actually do with the feedback they receive? We argue that AI tutor evaluation should be extended with a behavioral dimension grounded in student interaction data, which complements pedagogical assessment. We propose an evaluation framework and apply it to 10,235 code submissions with corresponding AI tutor feedback from an introductory undergraduate programming course to measure whether students act on tutor feedback and whether those actions are applied correctly. Using this framework to compare two deployed AI tutors across different semesters in a large-scale introductory computer science course reveals substantial differences in student engagement patterns that are not captured by pedagogy-only evaluation. Moreover, these engagement-based behavioral signals are more strongly associated with student perception of helpful feedback than pedagogical quality alone, providing a more complete and actionable picture of AI tutor
Research evaluation systems -- including journals, conferences, and funders -- are increasingly using author-level submission limits to manage growing submission loads. Most existing policies charge each submission as a unit cost against every coauthor's quota. This treats a solo-authored submission and a large collaborative submission identically for each author, even though the reviewing demand of a collaborative submission is jointly attributable to many authors rather than one. Thus we ask the question: how many submissions may an author make under coauthorships? We propose a "Harmonic Quota Rule", in which an author's cost for a submission decreases with the number of coauthors as the reciprocal of their harmonic number. We derive this rule in a principled manner that navigates the tension between respecting collaborations and being resistant to manipulation by adding spurious authors. We also develop a Generalized Harmonic Quota Rule, a framework that subsumes the Harmonic Quota Rule and other natural quota rules. Our framework requires specification of only three interpretable parameters, thereby enabling organizers to choose among various seemingly disparate rules. Our work
The most common method to auto-grade a student's submission in a CS1 or a CS2 course is to run it against a pre-defined test suite and compare the results against reference results. However, this technique cannot be used if the correctness of the solution goes beyond simple output, such as the algorithm used to obtain the result. There is no convenient method for the graders to identify the kind of algorithm used in solving a problem. They must read the source code and understand the algorithm implemented and its features, which makes the process tedious. We propose CASET(Complexity Analysis using Simple Execution Traces), a novel tool to analyze the time complexity of algorithms using dynamic traces and unsupervised machine learning. CASET makes it convenient for tutors to classify the submissions for a program into time complexity baskets. Thus, tutors can identify the algorithms used by the submissions without necessarily going through the code written by the students. CASET's analysis can be used to improve grading and provide detailed feedback for submissions that try to match the results without a proper algorithm, for example, hard-coding a binary result, pattern-matching th
Background: Humor is a fundamental part of human communication, with prior work linking positive humor in the workplace to positive outcomes, such as improved performance and job satisfaction. Aims: This study aims to investigate programming-related humor in a large social media community. Methodology: We collected 139,718 submissions from Reddit subreddit r/ProgrammerHumor. Both textual and image-based (memes) submissions were considered. The image data was processed with OCR to extract text from images for NLP analysis. Multiple regression models were built to investigate what makes submissions humorous. Additionally, a random sample of 800 submissions was labeled by human annotators regarding their relation to theories of humor, suitability for the workplace, the need for programming knowledge to understand the submission, and whether images in image-based submissions added context to the submission. Results: Our results indicate that predicting the humor of software developers is difficult. Our best regression model was able to explain only 10% of the variance. However, statistically significant differences were observed between topics, submission times, and associated humor th
In this paper, we present our submissions to the unified WMT25 Translation Evaluation Shared Task. For the Quality Score Prediction subtask, we create a new generation of MetricX with improvements in the input format and the training protocol, while for the Error Span Detection subtask we develop a new model, GemSpanEval, trained to predict error spans along with their severities and categories. Both systems are based on the state-of-the-art multilingual open-weights model Gemma 3, fine-tuned on publicly available WMT data. We demonstrate that MetricX-25, adapting Gemma 3 to an encoder-only architecture with a regression head on top, can be trained to effectively predict both MQM and ESA quality scores, and significantly outperforms its predecessor. Our decoder-only GemSpanEval model, on the other hand, we show to be competitive in error span detection with xCOMET, a strong encoder-only sequence-tagging baseline. With error span detection formulated as a generative task, we instruct the model to also output the context for each predicted error span, thus ensuring that error spans are identified unambiguously.
There is a great need for data in computing education research. Data is needed to understand how students behave, to train models of student behavior to optimally support students, and to develop and validate new assessment tools and learning analytics techniques. However, relatively few computing education datasets are shared openly, often due to privacy regulations and issues in making sure the data is anonymous. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising approach to create large-scale, privacy-preserving synthetic data, which can be used to explore various aspects of student learning, develop and test educational technologies, and support research in areas where collecting real student data may be challenging or impractical. This work explores generating synthetic buggy code submissions for introductory programming exercises using GPT-4o. We compare the distribution of test case failures between synthetic and real student data from two courses to analyze the accuracy of the synthetic data in mimicking real student data. Our findings suggest that LLMs can be used to generate synthetic incorrect submissions that are not significantly different from real student data with regar
Programming education should aim to provide students with a broad range of skills that they will later use while developing software. An important aspect in this is their ability to write code that is not only correct but also of high quality. Unfortunately, this is difficult to control in the setting of a massive open online course. In this paper, we carry out an analysis of the code quality of submissions from JetBrains Academy - a platform for studying programming in an industry-like project-based setting with an embedded code quality assessment tool called Hyperstyle. We analyzed more than a million Java submissions and more than 1.3 million Python submissions, studied the most prevalent types of code quality issues and the dynamics of how students fix them. We provide several case studies of different issues, as well as an analysis of why certain issues remain unfixed even after several attempts. Also, we studied abnormally long sequences of submissions, in which students attempted to fix code quality issues after passing the task. Our results point the way towards the improvement of online courses, such as making sure that the task itself does not incentivize students to writ
Flagging mechanisms on social media platforms allow users to report inappropriate posts/accounts for review by content moderators. These reports are pivotal to platforms' efforts toward regulating norm violations. This paper examines how platforms' design choices in implementing flagging mechanisms influence flaggers' perceptions of content moderation. We conducted a survey experiment asking US respondents (N=2,936) to flag inappropriate posts using one of 54 randomly assigned flagging implementations. After flagging, participants rated their fairness perceptions of the flag submission process along the dimensions of consistency, transparency, and voice (agency). We found that participants perceived greater transparency when flagging interfaces included community guidelines and greater voice when they incorporated a text box for open-ended feedback. Our qualitative analysis highlights user needs for improved accessibility, educational support for reporting, and protections against false flags. We offer design recommendations for building fairer flagging systems without exacerbating the cognitive burden of submitting flags.
It is ever more common in scientific publishing to ask authors to suggest some reviewers for their own manuscripts. The question then arises: How many submissions does it take to discover friendly suggested reviewers? To answer this question, we present an agent-based simulation of (single-blinded) peer review, followed by a Bayesian classification of suggested reviewers. To set a lower bound on the number of submissions possible, we create a optimistically simple model that should allow us to more readily deduce the degree of friendliness of the reviewer. Despite this model's optimistic conditions, we find that one would need hundreds of submissions to classify even a small reviewer subset. Thus, it is virtually unfeasible under realistic conditions. This ensures that the peer review system is sufficiently robust to allow authors to suggest their own reviewers.
This paper describes the multimodal Neural Machine Translation systems developed by LIUM and CVC for WMT18 Shared Task on Multimodal Translation. This year we propose several modifications to our previous multimodal attention architecture in order to better integrate convolutional features and refine them using encoder-side information. Our final constrained submissions ranked first for English-French and second for English-German language pairs among the constrained submissions according to the automatic evaluation metric METEOR.
Research communities have developed benchmark datasets across domains to compare the performance of algorithms and techniques However, tracking the progress in these research areas is not easy, as publications appear in different venues at the same time, and many of them claim to represent the state-of-the-art. To address this, research communities often organise periodic competitions to evaluate the performance of various algorithms and techniques, thereby tracking advancements in the field. However, these competitions pose a significant operational burden. The organisers must manage and evaluate a large volume of submissions. Furthermore, participants typically develop their solutions in diverse environments, leading to compatibility issues during the evaluation of their submissions. This paper presents an online competition system that automates the submission and evaluation process for a competition. The competition system allows organisers to manage large numbers of submissions efficiently, utilising isolated environments to evaluate submissions. This system has already been used successfully for several competitions, including the Grid-Based Pathfinding Competition and the Le
Author-level submission quotas are increasingly used to control growing peer-review load. Recent coauthorship-sensitive quota rules improve over fixed per-author limits by reducing the quota cost of multi-author submissions, often using harmonic authorship-credit models to prevent simple author-list padding. However, these rules conflate three distinct quantities: review burden, authorship credit, and submission responsibility. As a result, they can penalize genuine solo-authored work, treat all coauthors as equally responsible for a submission, and create bottlenecks for student-led papers when a faculty advisor appears on multiple unrelated submissions. We argue that submission quotas should be designed around the responsibility structure of a paper rather than only its number of coauthors. We formalize desiderata for quota rules, including venue-load control, padding resistance, role sensitivity, solo neutrality, and student non-blocking. We then propose a role-aware quota framework that assigns author-specific quota costs based on constrained roles such as lead author, regular coauthor, and designated advisor. The framework includes fixed, per-capita, and harmonic-style rules a
Ambivalence and hesitancy (A/H) undermine digital behaviour-change interventions, and recognizing them automatically from video is the goal of the ABAW A/H challenge on the BAH dataset. We describe our system for the 11th edition of the challenge: a calibrated, equal-weight ensemble of three fusion models over frozen face, audio, text, and pose embeddings, which reaches 0.7358 macro-F1 on the public test set. This year's private test, released on a disjoint set of 30 new participants, is scored on five allowed submissions; we report the configuration and rationale of each of our five submissions, and, where already available, the private-test score obtained. Our first submission, an exact replica of the calibrated ensemble tuned only on public validation, scored 0.7361 macro-F1 on the private test, matching our public-test estimate almost exactly and confirming the pipeline generalizes to unseen participants without leakage.
The IO500 benchmark has become the community standard for evaluating HPC storage system performance, yet the detailed data contained in its submission packages remains largely unexplored beyond aggregate leaderboard rankings. We present a statistical characterization of 61 IO500 submissions from four competition lists (ISC21 through SC22), examining score distributions, inter-phase correlations, and insights derived from detailed log files that accompany each submission. Our analysis reveals that IO500 scores span four orders of magnitude. Spearman correlation analysis shows strong within-domain clustering for both bandwidth (rs = 0.78 to 0.96) and metadata (rs = 0.89 to 0.98) phases, with the composite sub-scores exhibiting rs = 0.92 at per-node level (Pearson r = 0.53). Log-level analysis uncovers file-system-specific patterns in IOR close-time overhead, straggler behavior during the stonewall wear-down phase, and parallel-find load imbalance that are invisible in aggregate scores. These findings demonstrate that IO500 submission packages constitute a valuable research resource for understanding storage system behavior. The full submission dataset is publicly available at https:/
We present the University of Florida Gators submission to the AmericasNLP 2026 shared task on cultural image captioning for Indigenous languages. Our two-stage pipeline generates a Spanish intermediate caption with Qwen2.5-VL, then produces the target-language caption using retrieval-augmented many-shot prompting with Gemini 2.5 Flash. We achieve 164.1%, 131.7%, and 122.6% improvements over the shared task baseline for Bribri, Guaraní, and Orizaba Nahuatl captioning, respectively, in our dev set evaluation and maintain >150% improvements for the Bribri and Orizaba Nahuatl languages in the test set evaluation. We find retrieval is highly language-dependent, beneficial only for large, in-domain corpora, and that synthetic data augmentation accounts for around 28 chrF++ of the dev set Guaraní performance gain. Our submission is the overall winner of the shared task, placing second out of five finalist submissions in human evaluations of target-language captions.
As AI research surges in both impact and volume, conferences have imposed submission limits to maintain paper quality and alleviate organizational pressure. In this work, we examine the fairness of desk-rejection systems under submission limits and reveal that existing practices can result in substantial inequities. Specifically, we formally define the paper submission limit problem and identify a critical dilemma: when the number of authors exceeds three, it becomes impossible to reject papers solely based on excessive submissions without negatively impacting innocent authors. Thus, this issue may unfairly affect early-career researchers, as their submissions may be penalized due to co-authors with significantly higher submission counts, while senior researchers with numerous papers face minimal consequences. To address this, we propose an optimization-based fairness-aware desk-rejection mechanism and formally define two fairness metrics: individual fairness and group fairness. We prove that optimizing individual fairness is NP-hard, whereas group fairness can be efficiently optimized via linear programming. Through case studies, we demonstrate that our proposed system ensures gre
The scope of the International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT) has recently broadened beyond traditional Speech Translation (ST) to encompass a wider array of tasks, including Speech Question Answering and Summarization. This shift is partly driven by the growing capabilities of modern systems, particularly with the success of Large Language Models (LLMs). In this paper, we present the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology's submissions for the Offline ST and Instruction Following (IF) tracks, where we leverage LLMs to enhance performance across all tasks. For the Offline ST track, we propose a pipeline that employs multiple automatic speech recognition systems, whose outputs are fused using an LLM with document-level context. This is followed by a two-step translation process, incorporating additional refinement step to improve translation quality. For the IF track, we develop an end-to-end model that integrates a speech encoder with an LLM to perform a wide range of instruction-following tasks. We complement it with a final document-level refinement stage to further enhance output quality by using contextual information.
Dual-submission homework, where students submit work, receive feedback and then revise has gained attention as a way to foster reflection and discourage reliance on online answer repositories. This study analyzes 13 years of exam data from a computer architecture course to compare student performance under single versus dual-submission homework conditions. Using pooled t-tests on matched exam questions, we found that dual-submission significantly improved outcomes in a majority of cases. The results suggest that reflective resubmission can meaningfully enhance learning and may serve as a useful strategy in today's AI-influenced academic environment. This full research paper also discusses pedagogical implications and study limitations.