Artificial Intelligence and Cost Reduction in Public Higher Education: A Scoping Review of Emerging Evidence

Diamanto Tzanoulinou, Loukas Triantafyllopoulos, George Vorvilas, Evgenia Paxinou, Nikolaos Karousos, Thomas Dasaklis, Athanassios Mihiotis, Manolis Koutouzis, Dimitris Kalles, Vassilios S. Verykios · Apr 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Public higher education systems face increasing financial pressures from expanding student populations, rising operational costs, and persistent demands for equitable access. Artificial Intelligence (AI), including generative tools such as ChatGPT, learning analytics, intelligent tutoring systems, and predictive models, has been proposed as a means of enhancing efficiency and reducing costs. This study conducts a scoping review of the literature on AI applications in public higher education, based on systematic searches in Scopus and IEEE Xplore that identified 241 records, of which 21 empirical studies met predefined eligibility criteria and were thematically analyzed. The findings show that AI enables cost savings by automating administrative tasks, optimizing resource allocation, supporting personalized learning at scale, and applying predictive analytics to improve student retention and institutional planning. At the same time, concerns emerge regarding implementation costs, unequal access across institutions, and risks of widening digital divides. Overall, the thematic analysis highlights both the promises and limitations of AI-driven cost reduction in higher education, offering insights for policymakers, university administrators, and educators on the economic implications of AI adoption, while also pointing to gaps that warrant further empirical research.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 20%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.