Policy presence
KU Leuven has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Leuven, Belgium
KU Leuven
KU Leuven has 8 source-backed AI policy claims from 5 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 8 reviewed claims. Last checked May 12, 2026.
KU Leuven AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
KU Leuven has 8 source-backed AI policy claims from 5 official source attributions, including 8 reviewed claims. The record review state is agent reviewed; original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, confidence, and public JSON are preserved for citation. Last checked May 12, 2026. Discovery context: KU Leuven is listed as QS 2026 rank 60.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists KU Leuven as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 12, 2026 and last changed on May 12, 2026. The record contains 8 source-backed claims, including 8 reviewed claims, from 5 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/ku-leuven.json. The entity-level confidence is 90%. This tracker is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless the linked source is the university's own official page.
Policy signals in this record
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- Evidence includes Security review claims.
- Evidence includes Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes Research claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: Microsoft Copilot.
- Teaching, assessment, coursework, or syllabus-related language appears in the public claim text.
Review: Agent reviewed
This reference record summarizes visible public data only. Official sources and original-language evidence remain canonical; confidence is separate from review state.
This page is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless a linked source is the university's own official page.
Policy profile
Deterministic source-backed dimensions derived from this record's public claims.
Review: Machine candidate
Policy profile rows are machine-candidate derived metadata. They are not final policy conclusions; inspect the linked claim evidence before reuse.
Analysis page-quality metadata is available at /api/public/v1/analysis/page-quality.json.
AI disclosure
KU Leuven has 1 source-backed public claim for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Coursework
KU Leuven has 3 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: required.
Exams
KU Leuven has 4 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: required.
Privacy and data entry
KU Leuven has 3 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
KU Leuven has 2 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: required.
Approved tools
KU Leuven has 2 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: allowed.
Named AI services
KU Leuven has 4 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
KU Leuven has 3 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
KU Leuven has 2 source-backed public claims for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Security and procurement
KU Leuven has 1 source-backed public claim for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Coverage score measures breadth of public, source-backed coverage only. It is not a policy quality, strictness, legal adequacy, safety, or compliance score.
Evidence-backed claims
8 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Ai Tool Treatment
KU Leuven permits and encourages responsible, critical use of generative AI in teaching and research, framing it as a complement to critical thinking and professional expertise rather than a replacement.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: responsible_critical_genai_use_allowed_complement_not_replacement
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1KU Leuven is open to the use of generative AI (GenAI) in teaching and research, and encourages students, lecturers, researchers and staff to use this technology in a responsible and critical manner. Generative AI is a powerful tool. We use it consciously and purposefully: as a complement to, not a replacement for, critical thinking and professional expertise.
Academic Integrity
KU Leuven student guidance says students remain fully responsible for what they submit and must ensure assignments allow teaching staff to assess their acquired competences.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: students_responsible_for_submission_and_assessability
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 12 basic principles apply for students : A student has full responsibility for what they submit; You make sure that the assignment allows the teaching staff to evaluate which competences you have acquired as a student.
Academic Integrity
KU Leuven student guidance says clear misuse of GenAI, where output is largely generated by GenAI and the student is not transparent about tool use, can be considered an irregularity under Article 84 of the Education and Examination Regulations.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: nontransparent_genai_misuse_can_be_oer_article_84_irregularity
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1A clear misuse of GenAI - where any output was largely generated by GenAI and you were not transparent about using the tool - can be considered an irregularity under Article 84 of the Education and Examination Regulations (OER).
Teaching
KU Leuven teaching guidance expects teaching staff to clearly inform students whether GenAI may be used for assignments and expects students to be transparent about GenAI use so assessment can be fair and correct.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: teaching_staff_inform_students_students_transparent_for_fair_assessment
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1Teaching staff are expected to clearly inform students about whether or not they are allowed to use GenAI for assignments such as visual, writing and programming assignments. Students are expected to be transparent about the use of GenAI so that their knowledge, understanding and skills can be assessed fairly and correctly.
Security Review
KU Leuven identifies Copilot logged in with a KU Leuven account as its recommended GenAI tool, citing contractual data protection, Enterprise technical security, and Microsoft not using entered data for further training.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: copilot_logged_in_recommended_tool_enterprise_data_protection
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1Copilot is the preferred tool at KU Leuven. KU Leuven has a contractual agreement with Microsoft that also covers data protection. In addition, our Enterprise environment provides the best technical security, Microsoft does not use entered data for further training, and ICTS ensures the correct settings for all logged-in users.
Privacy
KU Leuven guidance says strictly confidential data should use only Copilot logged in with a KU Leuven account, and confidential or strictly confidential data require a security check if another AI tool is needed.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: strictly_confidential_data_only_copilot_confidential_other_tools_security_check
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1For (strictly) confidential data: use only Copilot logged in with your KU Leuven account. For other data: choose consciously, not automatically. For non-confidential data, you may use other AI tools. For confidential or strictly confidential data, a security check of the tool is mandatory.
Privacy
KU Leuven safe-use guidance warns users to be careful with unsupported AI tools and not to enter personal data, confidential information, IP-sensitive data, or copyrighted material.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: unsupported_ai_tools_do_not_enter_personal_confidential_ip_or_copyrighted_data
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1Online, you will find an awful lot of AI tools and more appear every day. Some of those tools are completely unreliable. Therefore, be extra careful when using unsupported tools and when sharing your data. Never fill in personal data, confidential (company) information like IP sensitive data and/or copyrighted material
Research
KU Leuven research guidance says GenAI use needs to be reported transparently whenever new output is generated in scientific publications, project applications, or doctoral theses.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: research_genai_transparency_publications_applications_doctoral_theses
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1Transparency about the use of GenAI in scientific publications, project applications and doctoral theses The use of GenAI needs to be reported in a transparent manner whenever new output is generated.
Candidate claims
0 machine or needs-review claim
Candidate claims are not final policy conclusions. They preserve source URL, source snapshot hash, evidence, confidence, and review state so the record can be audited before review.
Official sources
5 source attribution
Generative AI at KU Leuven
kuleuven.be
Guidelines for safe use of GenAI tools
kuleuven.be
Responsible use of Generative AI in our education
kuleuven.be
Responsible use of generative Artificial Intelligence
kuleuven.be
Using generative artificial intelligence as a researcher
research.kuleuven.be
Change log
Source-check timeline and diff-style claim/evidence preview.
View the public change record for this university, including source snapshot hashes, claim review states, and a diff-style preview of current source-backed evidence.
Corrections and missing evidence
Corrections create review tasks and do not directly change this public record.
If an official source is missing, stale, moved, blocked, or incorrectly summarized, submit a source URL, policy change report, or institution correction for review. Corrections must preserve source URLs, source language, original evidence, review state, and audit history.