J. C. F. de Winter | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Educating future engineers about LLMs: A scalable workshop

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into engineering workflows, students require hands-on experience to learn how to collaborate with them critically. This paper presents a scalable gamified workshop designed for engineering Master's students to practice human-AI collaboration in navigation planning. Using a mobile web interface across 10 workshop sessions, a total of 226 students wrote prompts for a non-reasoning and a reasoning LLM to solve grid-based navigation tasks of increasing complexity. The system returned robot-executable plans, trajectory visualizations, and automated scoring, culminating in a live demonstration on a Boston Dynamics Spot robot. In a post-workshop questionnaire, 81.5% reported substantial learning and 91.0% reported high engagement. Analysis of the submitted prompts revealed that students changed their strategies from step-by-step instructions for the non-reasoning LLM toward providing higher-level guidance for complex problem-solving tasks. We conclude that such interactive simulation-to-reality environments are viable for teaching the verification and collaboration skills necessary for responsible LLM use in engineering. Code is available at: https://github.com/renchizhhhh/LLM-robotics-workshop

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Comparing the Pearson and Spearman Correlation Coefficients Across Distributions and Sample Sizes: A Tutorial Using Simulations and Empirical Data

The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (rp) and the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) are widely used in psychological research. We compare rp and rs on 3 criteria: variability, bias with respect to the population value, and robustness to an outlier. Using simulations across low (N = 5) to high (N = 1,000) sample sizes we show that, for normally distributed variables, rp and rs have similar expected values but rs is more variable, especially when the correlation is strong. However, when the variables have high kurtosis, rp is more variable than rs. Next, we conducted a sampling study of a psychometric dataset featuring symmetrically distributed data with light tails, and of 2 Likert-type survey datasets, 1 with light-tailed and the other with heavy-tailed distributions. Consistent with the simulations, rp had lower variability than rs in the psychometric dataset. In the survey datasets with heavy-tailed variables in particular, rs had lower variability than rp, and often corresponded more accurately to the population Pearson correlation coefficient (Rp) than rp did. The simulations and the sampling studies showed that variability in terms of standard deviations can be reduced by about 20% by choosing rs instead of rp. In comparison, increasing the sample size by a factor of 2 results in a 41% reduction of the standard deviations of rs and rp. In conclusion, rp is suitable for light-tailed distributions, whereas rs is preferable when variables feature heavy-tailed distributions or when outliers are present, as is often the case in psychological research.

stat.ME↗