mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2501.10365 ↗First posted 9 Dec 2024cs.CY cs.AI cs.SEcited by 4

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → LLM preference optimization methods

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. First posted on arXiv 9 Dec 2024.

Builds on

0 of 0 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2023Automated Assessment of Students' Code Comprehension using LLMs
  2. 2025Do LLMs Make Mistakes Like Students? Exploring Natural Alignment between Language Models and Human Error Patterns
  3. 2024Code Prompting Elicits Conditional Reasoning Abilities in Text+Code LLMs
  4. 2026Not the Example, but the Process: How Self-Generated Examples Enhance LLM Reasoning
  5. 2024Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale
  6. 2024One Step at a Time: Combining LLMs and Static Analysis to Generate Next-Step Hints for Programming Tasks
  7. 2026When Do Explanations Help In-Context Learning? A Comparative Study of Natural Language Explanation Types and Faithfulness
  8. 2025LLMs can be easily Confused by Instructional Distractions