VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Gavin Witsken
dblp:402/3438
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computing education · 100% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computing education
automated question generation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | LLMs in the Classroom: Outcomes and Perceptions of Questions Written with the Aid of AI · AAAI 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
mann-whitney u test · 0.9large language model · 0.9cosine similarity · 0.9SBERT · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | LLMs in the Classroom: Outcomes and Perceptions of Questions Written with the Aid of AIabstractThis study evaluates the usage of OpenAI’s ChatGPT Large Language Model (LLM) as a tool for constructing multiple choice questions for assessing student academic performance through quizzes and exams. We randomly deploy questions constructed with and without use of the LLM tool and gauge the ability of the students to correctly answer, as well as their ability to correctly perceive the difference between human-authored and LLM-authored questions. In determining whether the questions written with the aid of ChatGPT were consistent with the instructor’s questions and source text, we computed representative vectors of both the human and ChatGPT questions using SBERT and compared cosine similarity to the course textbook. A non-significant Mann- Whitney U test (z = 1.018, p = .309) suggests that students were unable to perceive whether questions were written with or without the aid of ChatGPT. However, student scores on LLM-authored questions were almost 9% lower (z = 2.702, p < .01). This result may indicate that either the AI questions were more difficult or that the students were more familiar with the instructor’s style of questions. Overall, the study suggests that while there is potential for using LLM tools to aid in the construction of assessments, care must be taken to ensure that the questions are fair, well-composed, and relevant to the course material. Gavin Witsken, Igor Crk, Eren Gultepe |
AAAI | 1 |