Lausanne, Switzerland

EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne

EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne is listed as QS 2026 rank =22. EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.

Short answer

v1 public contract

EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne is listed as QS 2026 rank =22. EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.

Policy statusReviewed evidence-backed recordReview: Agent reviewedEvidence-backed claims5Reviewed5Candidate0Official sources6

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.

Coverage score100/100Coverage labelbroad public coverageReview: Machine candidateAnalysis confidence79%

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.

Policy presence

EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne has 1 source-backed public claim for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.

UnclearMachine candidateConfidence78%Evidence1Sources1

AI disclosure

EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne has 2 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.

RequiredMachine candidateConfidence80%Evidence2Sources2

Coursework

EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne has 3 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: required.

RequiredMachine candidateConfidence80%Evidence3Sources3

Exams

EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne has 3 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: required.

RequiredMachine candidateConfidence80%Evidence3Sources3

Privacy and data entry

EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne has 2 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.

RestrictedMachine candidateConfidence80%Evidence2Sources2

Academic integrity

EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne has 2 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: required.

RequiredMachine candidateConfidence80%Evidence2Sources2

Approved tools

EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne has 1 source-backed public claim for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: recommended.

RecommendedMachine candidateConfidence78%Evidence1Sources1

Named AI services

EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne has 2 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.

RestrictedMachine candidateConfidence80%Evidence2Sources2

Teaching guidance

EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne has 1 source-backed public claim for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.

RecommendedMachine candidateConfidence80%Evidence1Sources1

Research guidance

No source-backed public claim about research AI use is present in this profile.

The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about research use, publication ethics, research data, grants, or human-subjects compliance.

Not MentionedMachine candidateConfidence0%Evidence0Sources0

Security and procurement

EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne has 1 source-backed public claim for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: recommended.

RecommendedMachine candidateConfidence78%Evidence1Sources1

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

5 reviewed evidence-backed public claim

Privacy

EPFL advises students not to input confidential, private or personal information into generative AI tools. When using generative AI tools, students are sharing data with private companies and lose control over it.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Never input confidential, private or personal information about yourself or others into these tools. Always reflect first on the nature of the information you are using, because once you enter it into one of these tools, it’s no longer confidential.

Academic Integrity

EPFL requires students to disclose the use of AI tools in assessment work. EPFL rules (Lex 1.3.3, Article 4) require that all assessment material that is not the student's personal and original contribution must be recognizable as such.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence95%

Original evidence

Evidence 1
EPFL rules (Lex 1.3.3, Article 4) require that all assessment material that is not the student’s personal and original contribution must be recognizable as such. Therefore, the use of AI tools should be disclosed in a statement.

Teaching

EPFL recommends that teachers make explicit to students what AI use is not legitimate in a course and what rules accompany AI tool use.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Since there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ rule regarding the use of AI in assessment, it is recommended that teachers make explicit to students what kind of use is not legitimate in their course, and what rules accompany the use of AI tools.

Academic Integrity

EPFL considers the use of AI-generated content in assignments without proper attribution as AI plagiarism. Tools that detect AI-generated content are not admissible as stand-alone evidence of AI plagiarism due to high risk of false positives.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence93%

Original evidence

Evidence 1
The use of AI-generated content in assignments without proper attribution is considered AI plagiarism. Tools that specifically aim to detect whether content was AI-generated (e.g., turnitin ) are not admissible as stand-alone evidence of AI plagiarism due to their high risk of false positives

Privacy

EPFL guidance says enterprise licenses such as Microsoft 365 Copilot via EPFL account are currently not a secure solution for processing regulated data because EPFL has not signed a data processing agreement guaranteeing aligned data protection measures.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence92%

Original evidence

Evidence 1
However, enterprise licenses such as Microsoft 365 Copilot via your EPFL account are currently not a secure solution for processing regulated data, because no data processing agreement has been signed by EPFL that would guarantee that data protection measures align with institutional needs or with Swiss legislation on personal data protection.

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

6 source attribution

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.

Last checkedMay 10, 2026Last changedMay 10, 2026Open change log

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.

Back to universities