arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.27248

ValiAssist: Scaling LLM-generated Programming Feedback Validation by Demonstration

Xiaohang Tang·Rehema Abulikemu·Peng Gao·Yan Chen
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Generative AI can create programming feedback at scale, but validating its alignment with instructors' pedagogical goals and strategies remains challenging. Instructors may struggle to fully specify validation criteria upfront, as these often emerge through inspecting concrete examples and revising misaligned feedback. We present ValiAssist, a validation-by-demonstration system that infers reusable validation logic from instructors' revisions of AI-generated feedback and allows instructors to inspect and refine that logic as it is applied across other student submissions. In a comparative study with 16 instructors, ValiAssist helped instructors create and refine validation criteria, producing feedback that better aligned with their pedagogical intent (91% vs. 57%) and more than doubling the accuracy of correcting problematic criteria (77% vs. 32%). Our findings suggest that validation by demonstration can help instructors turn judgments they know how to make on individual cases into explicit, reusable logic, while progressively clarifying where those judgments do and do not generalize.

Explore related subjects

cs.HCcs.AIcs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Xiaohang Tang, Rehema Abulikemu, Peng Gao, Yan Chen. 2026-10-19. ValiAssist: Scaling LLM-generated Programming Feedback Validation by Demonstration. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27248

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Beauty Is Human: When People Love AI-Generated Art, They Think a Human Made It

Generative AI now produces images and poems that people cannot reliably distinguish from human-made work, so people often judge for themselves who made a work. We examine how these perceived-authorship judgments relate to aesthetic preference. In a public online AI Art Turing Test, 11,123 people judged whether each of 50 pictures (26 AI-generated) was made by a human and were asked for their favourite. Among the 9,152 respondents who judged their favourite, a picture was 22.1 percentage points more likely to be judged human-made when it was the respondent's favourite, holding respondent and picture fixed. The association was similar for AI-generated and human-made favourites, was positive for all 50 pictures, and appeared under every reported detection strategy. Respondents most negative about AI art chose fewer AI-generated favourites (47% against 60% among the most positive) but more often believed them human-made, partly because others also judged those pictures human. As a result, in every opinion group a third to two fifths of respondents named an AI-generated favourite they believed human-made. A reanalysis of a published experiment on AI-generated poetry, in which 230 people rated each poem before judging its authorship, found the same pattern, although the AI poems were rated higher. When provenance is hidden, liking and perceived human authorship travel together, consistent with aesthetic response serving as evidence of a human maker and with beliefs about the maker shaping enjoyment. The findings qualify research on bias against AI art, which typically uses explicit labels, and inform AI disclosure policy.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

LogicTree: Object-Oriented Writing for Structured Human-AI Academic Authoring

Academic writing is non-linear, iterative, and structure-driven, requiring authors to develop fragmented ideas into arguments with local coherence and global consistency. However, current AI-assisted tools primarily exchange linear prompts and free-form text, forcing authors to reconstruct generated logic and repeatedly verify its alignment with their structural intentions. We propose object-oriented writing (OOW), an OOD-inspired representation and interaction paradigm in which persistent writing objects serve as shared, manipulable referents for authors and AI. We instantiate OOW in LogicTree, an Overleaf-integrated prototype that combines a hierarchical object representation with a structure-grounded writing assistance module for author-initiated generation and issue-grounded revision and a structural logical review module for inspecting local coherence and global consistency. A within-subjects study (N=12) provides initial evidence that, in controlled academic writing tasks, LogicTree helps users structure ideas, reduces workload, and improves measured logical quality compared with a conversational baseline.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

How K-12 Teachers Adapt Generative AI to Local Classroom Demands: Cultural Distance Between GenAI Defaults and Everyday Teaching Practices

Generative AI (GenAI) is entering K-12 classrooms, but its default culture does not always fit local teaching. Existing accounts either treat this misfit as macro-level structural bias or examine it through single-case studies; neither captures how much work teachers must do to make outputs usable across tasks. This exploratory, theory-building qualitative study introduces cultural distance, the gap between GenAI's default cultural repertoire and the situated demands of teachers' practice. Through interviews with 30 K-12 teachers who frequently use GenAI, 10 each from South Africa, Taiwan, and the United States, we identified three levels defined by the effort teachers invested and whether it yielded a usable output: low (minor edits), mid (sustained prompting and revision), and high (structural gaps rooted in unsupported languages, undigitized knowledge, or policy filters that no teacher effort can close). We present cultural distance as a promising framework requiring further examination and draw implications for designers, policymakers, and educators.

cs.HC↗