Skip to content

ChatGPT Solves All Tested Qiskit Homework Assignments

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 9 references
Computer Science Physics

TL;DR

This study examined whether introductory Qiskit homework could remain autogradable while requiring students to run, review, and discuss results rather than banning AI.

Abstract

Generative AI creates an assessment challenge in quantum software education: a student can provide a homework notebook to ChatGPT and request a completed submission. This study examined whether introductory Qiskit homework could remain autogradable while requiring students to run, review, and discuss results rather than banning AI. Three packages were tested: seeded basis-state circuits with bit flips and customized measurement mappings; Quantum Fourier Transform followed by inverse-transform recovery; and seeded Deutsch-Jozsa with customized oracle masks. The designs used personalization, simulator execution, JSON submissions, hidden references, circuit metrics, reflections, and optional IBM Quantum execution. For each package, one student-visible instance was tested in 50 separate ChatGPT sessions, yielding 150 sessions overall. Every final artifact was executed and passed its grader. Nine sessions were fully archived; none required operator code changes or correction of quantum logic. Under the study's operational definition, each tested instance had zero observed ChatGPT-resiliency. Seeds changed parameters rather than task structure, expected results remained derivable from visible assignment logic, scaffolding exposed key solution steps, and hidden grading verified output consistency without establishing independent authorship or understanding. Because one instance was repeated for each package, the results do not establish solvability for every seed or possible Qiskit assessment. The tested personalized, execution-oriented take-home designs therefore did not prevent successful completion under a minimally engaged-student workflow. Correct artifacts should be complemented by direct assessment through supervised modification, oral defense, prediction, and transfer tasks.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Jul 2026

EduGuard: A Safe RAG-Based LLM Tutor for Programming Education

E EduGuard, a safe retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) tutoring framework for introductory programming, is presented and compared against strong baselines, suggesting safe GenAI tutoring requires not only retrieval or strong prompting, but explicit pedagogical control, evidence verification, and deployment safeguards.

S. Hossain, Ruksat Khan Shayoni, M. F. Mridha et al. · 0 citations
Book Open access Jul 2026

Debugging USD composition

This course teaches a repeatable, production-oriented method for debugging OpenUSD composition issues by focusing on how artists, technical directors, and pipeline developers can investigate real failures by tracing symptoms back to authored opinions, layer stacks, asset resolution, references, variants, edit targets, and render-facing overrides.

Pallav Sharma, N. Porcino, J. Panis · 0 citations
Review Jul 2026

Computer-generated QIS tutorial feedback is valued by students, but does not replicate in-class collaboration

While the computer-generated feedback was broadly considered useful by students, student engagement patterns were markedly different in the solo setting, with students demonstrating reluctance to use the interface's built-in help features and tending to internalize failure in unproductive ways counter to the intention of a formative learning environment.

J. C. Meyer, S. Pollock, Bethany R. Wilcox et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

Generative AI Availability, Grades, and Student Satisfaction at a Large University

It is found that there is no significant differential effect of GenAI availability on grades overall or among previously lower-performing students, and the findings temper concerns that GenAI inflates grades and reduces students's satisfaction.

J. Dumlao, Meng Wang, Zhonghan Xie et al. · 0 citations
Review Aug 2026

CodeStylist: Supporting Early Undergraduate Programmers with Course-Aware Code Style Feedback

Findings are interpreted as evidence that course-aware style feedback is promising as a pre-submission revision aid, but that future versions should combine deterministic rule checks with LLM-generated explanations, rule citations, and stronger verification support.

Ethan Dickey, L. Vento, Peter Kurto et al. · 0 citations

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Aug 17, 2026

Q&A: Rethinking how innovation happens

In his latest book, Professor Eugene Fitzgerald examines the forces that turn breakthroughs into value — and why innovation resists simple formulas.