Bangalore, India

Indian Institute of Science

Record status

Policy statusReviewed evidence-backed recordReview: Agent reviewedClaim coverage3 reviewedEvidence-backed claims3Reviewed3Candidate0Official sources2Source languageenPublic JSON/api/public/v1/universities/indian-institute-of-science.json

Policy profile

Coverage score85/100Coverage labelbroad public coverageReview: Machine candidateAnalysis confidence79%

Exams

Indian Institute of Science has 1 source-backed public claim for exams; deterministic analysis status: conditionally_allowed.

Conditionally AllowedMachine candidateConfidence77%Evidence1Sources1

Privacy and data entry

Indian Institute of Science has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.

RestrictedMachine candidateConfidence80%Evidence1Sources1

Academic integrity

No source-backed public claim about academic-integrity treatment of AI use is present in this profile.

The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about AI use under academic integrity, misconduct, dishonesty, plagiarism, or cheating rules.

Not MentionedMachine candidateConfidence0%Evidence0Sources0

Approved tools

Indian Institute of Science has 1 source-backed public claim for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: conditionally_allowed.

Conditionally AllowedMachine candidateConfidence77%Evidence1Sources1

Named AI services

Indian Institute of Science has 1 source-backed public claim for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.

RestrictedMachine candidateConfidence80%Evidence1Sources1

Research guidance

Indian Institute of Science has 1 source-backed public claim for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.

RecommendedMachine candidateConfidence79%Evidence1Sources1

Security and procurement

No source-backed public claim about AI security review or procurement is present in this profile.

The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about security review, procurement, vendor approval, risk assessment, authentication, SSO, or enterprise licensing.

Not MentionedMachine candidateConfidence0%Evidence0Sources0

AI tools

Derived tool records0

No tool-level evidence is published for this record yet. Broad AI tool mentions are not expanded into named tool conclusions.

Evidence-backed claims

3 reviewed evidence-backed public claim

Privacy

IISc faculty-facing AI guidance says entering data into an open AI tool should be treated like posting it publicly unless there are strong reasons to trust the tool, and says not to input sensitive, confidential, or restricted information into open AI tools.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%

Normalized value: do_not_input_sensitive_confidential_restricted_information

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Hence, entering data into an AI tool should be regarded as equivalent to posting it in public (unless there are strong reasons to trust that a specific tool will not use your queries). Do not enter, contribute, or otherwise input sensitive, confidential, or restricted information into open AI tools.

Localized display only

The faculty presentation warns against entering sensitive, confidential, or restricted information into open AI tools.

Research

The IISc committee report recommends full, precise, and transparent disclosure of generative AI use in research publications, theses, and other Institute documents, with details depending on how the tools were used.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence93%

Normalized value: research_disclosure_recommended

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Use of generative AI should be fully disclosed, with attribution that is precise, transparent, and with adequate details. In particular, when one is using generative AI in publications, one should follow the guidelines of the Journal, Conference, or Publisher. For thesis and other Institute documents, one should follow the guidelines for publications given below.

Localized display only

The report recommends detailed disclosure and attribution for generative AI use in publications, theses, and other Institute documents.

Teaching

An IISc committee report recommends 'allowed with attribution' as the default institutional policy for AI tool use in courses, while allowing instructors, departments, divisions, or programmes to tailor the baseline policy.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence91%

Normalized value: recommended_default_allowed_with_attribution

Original evidence

Evidence 1
We recommend allowed with attribution as the default institutional policy. This default policy should be articulated via an appropriate channel, such as the Student Handbook. Furthermore, this default policy can be tailored at each level in the hierarchy: individual course instructor, department, division, or programme.

Localized display only

The committee recommends an allowed-with-attribution default for coursework AI use, with tailoring by instructors or academic units.

Candidate claims

0 machine or needs-review claim

Official sources

2 source attribution

Change log

Last checkedMay 15, 2026Last changedMay 15, 2026Open change log

Corrections

Back to universities