Synthetic Students: A Comparative Study of Bug Distribution Between Large Language Models and Computing Students

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09193v1
• Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 18:51:58 GMT
• Title: Synthetic Students: A Comparative Study of Bug Distribution Between Large Language Models and Computing Students
• Authors: Stephen MacNeil, Magdalena Rogalska, Juho Leinonen, Paul Denny, Arto Hellas, Xandria Crosland,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) present an exciting opportunity for generating synthetic classroom data. This research paper examines the distribution of bugs generated by LLMs in contrast to those produced by computing students.
• Score: 4.949067768845775
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) present an exciting opportunity for generating synthetic classroom data. Such data could include code containing a typical distribution of errors, simulated student behaviour to address the cold start problem when developing education tools, and synthetic user data when access to authentic data is restricted due to privacy reasons. In this research paper, we conduct a comparative study examining the distribution of bugs generated by LLMs in contrast to those produced by computing students. Leveraging data from two previous large-scale analyses of student-generated bugs, we investigate whether LLMs can be coaxed to exhibit bug patterns that are similar to authentic student bugs when prompted to inject errors into code. The results suggest that unguided, LLMs do not generate plausible error distributions, and many of the generated errors are unlikely to be generated by real students. However, with guidance including descriptions of common errors and typical frequencies, LLMs can be shepherded to generate realistic distributions of errors in synthetic code.

Related papers

• LLM-based Cognitive Models of Students with Misconceptions [55.29525439159345]
  This paper investigates whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can be instruction-tuned to meet this dual requirement. We introduce MalAlgoPy, a novel Python library that generates datasets reflecting authentic student solution patterns. Our insights enhance our understanding of AI-based student models and pave the way for effective adaptive learning systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:51:09Z)
• Subtle Errors Matter: Preference Learning via Error-injected Self-editing [59.405145971637204]
  We propose a novel preference learning framework called eRror-Injected Self-Editing (RISE) RISE injects predefined subtle errors into partial tokens of correct solutions to construct hard pairs for error mitigation. Experiments validate the effectiveness of RISE, with preference learning on Qwen2-7B-Instruct yielding notable improvements of 3.0% on GSM8K and 7.9% on MATH.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T07:43:38Z)
• LLMs Know More Than They Show: On the Intrinsic Representation of LLM Hallucinations [46.351064535592336]
  Large language models (LLMs) often produce errors, including factual inaccuracies, biases, and reasoning failures. Recent studies have demonstrated that LLMs' internal states encode information regarding the truthfulness of their outputs. We show that the internal representations of LLMs encode much more information about truthfulness than previously recognized.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:31:31Z)
• Stepwise Verification and Remediation of Student Reasoning Errors with Large Language Model Tutors [78.53699244846285]
  Large language models (LLMs) present an opportunity to scale high-quality personalized education to all. LLMs struggle to precisely detect student's errors and tailor their feedback to these errors. Inspired by real-world teaching practice where teachers identify student errors and customize their response based on them, we focus on verifying student solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-12T10:11:40Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• Are LLMs Naturally Good at Synthetic Tabular Data Generation? [11.266896863556124]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their prowess in generating synthetic text and images. This paper demonstrates that LLMs are severely inadequate as synthetic table generators. We showcase how LLMs can be made to overcome some of these deficiencies by making them permutation-aware.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:52:29Z)
• Unveiling the Flaws: Exploring Imperfections in Synthetic Data and Mitigation Strategies for Large Language Models [89.88010750772413]
  Synthetic data has been proposed as a solution to address the issue of high-quality data scarcity in the training of large language models (LLMs) Our work delves into these specific flaws associated with question-answer (Q-A) pairs, a prevalent type of synthetic data, and presents a method based on unlearning techniques to mitigate these flaws. Our work has yielded key insights into the effective use of synthetic data, aiming to promote more robust and efficient LLM training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T08:38:59Z)
• Where Do Large Language Models Fail When Generating Code? [10.519984835232359]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown great potential in code generation. It is unclear what kinds of code generation errors LLMs can make. We analyzed incorrect code snippets generated by six popular LLMs on the HumanEval dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T01:29:52Z)
• Improving LLM Classification of Logical Errors by Integrating Error Relationship into Prompts [1.7095867620640115]
  A key aspect of programming education is understanding and dealing with error message. 'logical errors' in which the program operates against the programmer's intentions do not receive error messages from the compiler. We propose an effective approach for detecting logical errors with LLMs that makes use of relations among error types in the Chain-of-Thought and Tree-of-Thought prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T08:03:22Z)
• Decoding Logic Errors: A Comparative Study on Bug Detection by Students and Large Language Models [5.162225137921625]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated surprising performance for a range of computing tasks. We investigate the performance of two popular LLMs, GPT-3 and GPT-4, for detecting and providing a novice-friendly explanation of logic errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T17:28:33Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.