Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Can LLMs Identify Gaps and Misconceptions in Students' Code Explanations?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2501.10365 v1 pith:HJX46A66 submitted 2024-12-09 cs.CY cs.AIcs.SE

classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.SE
keywords gapsstudentscodeexplanationsmisconceptionsidentifyidentifyingllms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper investigates various approaches using Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify gaps and misconceptions in students' self-explanations of specific instructional material, in our case explanations of code examples. This research is a part of our larger effort to automate the assessment of students' freely generated responses, focusing specifically on their self-explanations of code examples during activities related to code comprehension. In this work, we experiment with zero-shot prompting, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), and preference alignment of LLMs to identify gaps in students' self-explanation. With simple prompting, GPT-4 consistently outperformed LLaMA3 and Mistral in identifying gaps and misconceptions, as confirmed by human evaluations. Additionally, our results suggest that fine-tuned large language models are more effective at identifying gaps in students' explanations compared to zero-shot and few-shot prompting techniques. Furthermore, our findings show that the preference optimization approach using Odds Ratio Preference Optimization (ORPO) outperforms SFT in identifying gaps and misconceptions in students' code explanations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Understanding Student Perceptions, Mistakes, and Debugging Approaches when Solving Natural Language Programming Tasks

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Novices solving dialogue-based Prompt Problems omit key specification details and recover mainly by clarifying intent, not by tracing generated code or tests.

  2. Taxonomy-Targeted Error Generation for Quantitative Reasoning

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A generation-then-judge LLM pipeline can produce taxonomy-targeted synthetic wrong answers for quantitative questions, though targeted errors are harder than free-form ones and real-student validity is untested.

Pith tools