Policy presence
Technical University of Denmark has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
Technical University of Denmark
Technical University of Denmark is listed as QS 2026 rank 107. Technical University of Denmark has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 4 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.
Short answer
v1 public contract
Technical University of Denmark is listed as QS 2026 rank 107. Technical University of Denmark has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 4 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists Technical University of Denmark as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 14, 2026 and last changed on May 14, 2026. The record contains 8 source-backed claims, including 8 reviewed claims, from 4 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/technical-university-of-denmark.json. The entity-level confidence is 94%. 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 Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- Evidence includes Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes Security review claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot.
- Disclosure, acknowledgment, citation, or attribution language appears in the public claim text.
- 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
Technical University of Denmark has 3 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
Technical University of Denmark has 4 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Exams
Technical University of Denmark has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
Technical University of Denmark has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Academic integrity
Technical University of Denmark has 3 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: required.
Approved tools
Technical University of Denmark has 3 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
Technical University of Denmark has 4 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
Technical University of Denmark has 2 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
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.
Security and procurement
Technical University of Denmark 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
Academic Integrity
DTU's exam-cheating rules state that use of AI such as ChatGPT or similar artificial intelligence, where the program writes or solves a task, is plagiarism if no source reference is made.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: unreferenced_ai_generated_work_can_be_plagiarism
Original evidence
Evidence 1Anvendelse af AI, som f.eks. ChatGPT og tilsvarende former for kunstig intelligens, hvor det ikke er én selv, men programmet/robotten, der skriver, løser en opgave mv., er også plagiat, hvis man ikke laver kildehenvisning.
Localized display only
Use of AI such as ChatGPT, where the program writes or solves the task, is plagiarism if no source reference is made.
Ai Tool Treatment
DTU states that it permits generative AI in teaching and open-internet exams, while current exam use is limited to selected courses and exams.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: permitted_with_course_specific_limits
Original evidence
Evidence 1DTU omfavner brugen af kunstig intelligens (generativ AI) og tillader derfor brugen af generativ AI i undervisning og til eksamen med åbent internet. ... På nuværende tidspunkt er AI tilladt til enkelte eksaminer.
Localized display only
DTU says it permits generative AI in teaching and open-internet exams, while AI is currently allowed in selected exams.
Academic Integrity
DTU tells students they may use AI in their studies if they clearly state when and how they use it and follow source-citation rules.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: ai_use_requires_clear_disclosure_and_citation
Original evidence
Evidence 1Ja selvfølgelig, så længe de studerende tydeligt anfører, når og hvordan de bruger AI. Se reglerne for kildeangivelser ved brug af generativ AI.
Localized display only
Students may use AI if they clearly state when and how they use it and follow citation rules.
Academic Integrity
DTU Library guidance says generative AI use in project reports and final project assignments must be distinctly declared, including how it was used.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: project_reports_must_declare_genai_use
Original evidence
Evidence 1DTU permits the use of generative AI but please be mindful of the following guidelines if you use generative AI in your project: Declare. You must distinctly declare that you have used AI in your report and how you have used it.
Localized display only
DTU Library says use of generative AI in project reports must be distinctly declared, including how it was used.
Ai Tool Treatment
DTU states that it currently does not have rules specifying which AI tools are allowed or prohibited, and instead emphasizes common sense, the honour code, and clear source attribution.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: no_current_university_wide_ai_tool_allow_or_ban_list
Original evidence
Evidence 1Derfor har DTU på nuværende tidpunkt ikke regler for hvilke AI værktøjer der er tilladte eller ej – men opfordrer til sund fornuft, bevidsthed om DTU’s ærekodeks og tydelig kildeangivelse.
Localized display only
DTU says it currently has no rules about which AI tools are allowed or prohibited, while emphasizing common sense, the honour code, and clear attribution.
Teaching
DTU states that teachers may use AI when preparing teaching materials.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: teachers_may_use_ai_for_teaching_materials
Original evidence
Evidence 1Må undervisere bruge AI, når de tilrettelægger deres undervisningsmateriale? Ja selvfølgelig. AI er en mulighed for gentænke underviserrolle.
Localized display only
DTU says teachers may use AI when preparing teaching materials.
Privacy
DTU says content subject to GDPR or otherwise critical for DTU or individuals should use Copilot for the web.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: copilot_for_gdpr_or_critical_content
Original evidence
Evidence 1Hvis indholdet er underlagt GDPR eller på anden måde er kritisk for DTU’s virke eller for personer, bør du bruge Copilot for the web.
Localized display only
For GDPR-covered or otherwise critical content, DTU says users should use Copilot for the web.
Security Review
DTU's tool guidance says an AI tool should go through DTU's official channels before use when a responsible person would impose it on others at DTU.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: official_channels_before_imposed_ai_tool_use
Original evidence
Evidence 1If you are considering using the tool not for personal use, but for an activity at DTU where you have the overarching responsibility ... you should run the tool through DTU’s official channels before starting to use it.
Localized display only
When a responsible person would impose tool use on others at DTU, the tool should go through DTU's official channels before use.
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
4 source attribution
How to declare the use of Generative AI
bibliotek.dtu.dk
Rules and FAQ | DTU AI Info Hub
ai.dtu.dk
Snyd ved eksamen og anden bedømmelse
student.dtu.dk
Tools | DTU AI Info Hub
ai.dtu.dk
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.