arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv subjects

Christina Trotter

Publications and source records attributed to Christina Trotter.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Evaluating the Semantic-to-Geometric Gap in Adversarial Defenses Against Vision-Language Model-Based Plagiarism

The rapidly advancing capabilities of vision-language models (VLMs) present a systemic challenge to academic integrity. VLMs now allow students to bypass meaningful engagement by capturing and submitting graphical problems as singular images, a practice we define as trivial plagiarism. To provide educators with actionable data on VLM limitations, we investigate the efficacy of heuristic adversarial image transformations designed to degrade model performance while remaining human-interpretable. Through a two-phase evaluation of introductory assessments, we manually assess baseline VLM performance on circuit diagrams, followed by an automated large-scale evaluation of topological structures (logic gates) and coordinate geometry (Karnaugh maps). We find that while highly capable VLMs can exhibit appreciable robustness, all models suffer vulnerability to adversarial perturbations. We conclude that while visual perturbations act as a viable near-term stopgap, long-term assessment security requires educators to reapproach assessment design given continually increasing VLM performance.

cs.CV

Can AI Recognize Its Own Reflection? Self-Detection Performance of LLMs in Computing Education

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) presents a significant challenge to academic integrity within computing education. As educators seek reliable detection methods, this paper evaluates the capacity of three prominent LLMs (GPT-4, Claude, and Gemini) to identify AI-generated text in computing-specific contexts. We test their performance under both standard and 'deceptive' prompt conditions, where the models were instructed to evade detection. Our findings reveal a significant instability: while default AI-generated text was easily identified, all models struggled to correctly classify human-written work (with error rates up to 32%). Furthermore, the models were highly susceptible to deceptive prompts, with Gemini's output completely fooling GPT-4. Given that simple prompt alterations significantly degrade detection efficacy, our results demonstrate that these LLMs are currently too unreliable for making high-stakes academic misconduct judgments.

cs.CY