The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automated feedback generation for introductory programming assignments
Abstract
We present a new method for automatically providing feedback for introductory programming problems. In order to use this method, we need a reference implementation of the assignment, and an error model consisting of potential corrections to errors that students might make. Using this information, the system automatically derives minimal corrections to student's incorrect solutions, providing them with a measure of exactly how incorrect a given solution was, as well as feedback about what they did wrong.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside
Bernstein, M. S., Little, G., Miller, R. C., Hartmann, B., Ackerman, M. S., Karger, D. R., Crowell, D., & Panovich, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology · doi:10.1145/1866029.1866078 · Cited by 686
Cited by
On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 · Cited by 2,676
Le Goues, C., Pradel, M., & Roychoudhury, A. (2019) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3318162 · Cited by 410
A systematic literature review of automated feedback generation for programming exercises
Keuning, H., Jeuring, J., & Heeren, B. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3231711 · Cited by 370
Automated Grading and Feedback Tools for Programming Education: A Systematic Review
Messer, M., Brown, N. C. C., Kölling, M., & Shi, M. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3636515 · Cited by 262
Identifying patch correctness in test-based program repair
Xiong, Y., Liu, X., Zeng, M., Zhang, L., & Huang, G. (2018) · Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3180155.3180182 · Cited by 162
Automated clustering and program repair for introductory programming assignments
Gulwani, S., Radiček, I., & Zuleger, F. (2018) · ACM SIGPLAN Notices · doi:10.1145/3296979.3192387 · Cited by 82
Self-citationLan, A. S., Vats, D., Waters, A. E., & Baraniuk, R. G. (2015) · Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale · doi:10.1145/2724660.2724664 · Cited by 60
Students’ Perceptions and Preferences of Generative Artificial Intelligence Feedback for Programming
Zhang, Z., Dong, Z., Shi, Y., Price, T., Matsuda, N., & Xu, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i21.30372 · Cited by 54
Deep Reinforcement Learning for Syntactic Error Repair in Student Programs
Gupta, R., Kanade, A., & Shevade, S. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.3301930 · Cited by 54
Personalized Feedback Enhanced by Natural Language Processing in Intelligent Tutoring Systems
Troussas, C., Papakostas, C., Krouska, A., Mylonas, P., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2023) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32883-1_58 · Cited by 47
Jutge.org: Characteristics and Experiences
Petit, J., Roura, S., Carmona, J., Cortadella, J., Duch, J., Gimenez, O., Mani, A., Mas, J., Rodriguez-Carbonell, E., Rubio, E., et al. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2017.2723389 · Cited by 33
Measuring code behavioral similarity for programming and software engineering education
Li, S., Xiao, X., Bassett, B., Xie, T., & Tillmann, N. (2016) · Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion · doi:10.1145/2889160.2889204 · Cited by 30
A GPT-Based Code Review System With Accurate Feedback for Programming Education
Lee, D.-K., & Joe, I. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3581139 · Cited by 20
Search, align, and repair: data-driven feedback generation for introductory programming exercises
Wang, K., Singh, R., & Su, Z. (2018) · ACM SIGPLAN Notices · doi:10.1145/3296979.3192384 · Cited by 17
Self-citationA Survey on Feedback Types in Automated Programming Assessment Systems
Frankford, E., Antensteiner, T., Vierhauser, M., Sauerwein, C., Wallner, V., Groher, I., Plösch, R., & Breu, R. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3773911 · Cited by 10
Comparative study between automatic hint generation approaches in Intelligent Programming Tutors
MAHDAOUI, M., NOUH, S., ALAOUI, M. S. E., & SADIQ, M. (2022) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.259 · Cited by 8
Intelligent Immersion: AI and VR Tools for Next-Generation Higher Education
Liakopoulos, K., & Liapakis, A. (2026) · AI in Education · doi:10.3390/aieduc2020013 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Singh, R., Gulwani, S., & Solar-Lezama, A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 34th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2013-06-16
- Pages
- 15-26
- ISSN
- 1531-7102 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2012312630
- Cited by
- 383
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 24.98
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
