Fine-Tuning Models for Automated Code Review Feedback

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12610v1
• Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 18:02:04 GMT
• Title: Fine-Tuning Models for Automated Code Review Feedback
• Abstract summary: We investigate whether parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) and prompt engineering can be used to adapt and enhance the quality of feedback generated by the open LLM Code Llama.<n>Our findings indicate that PEFT leads to notable improvements in feedback quality and significantly outperforms prompt engineering.
• Score: 1.5866079116942815
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models have introduced new possibilities for programming education through personalized support, content creation, and automated feedback. While recent studies have demonstrated the potential for feedback generation, many techniques rely on proprietary models, raising concerns about cost, computational demands, and the ethical implications of sharing student code. Open LLMs provide an alternative approach, but they do not currently have the capabilities of proprietary models. To address this problem, we investigate whether parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) and prompt engineering, both of which distil knowledge from a dataset derived from a large, more capable model, can be used to adapt and enhance the quality of feedback generated by the open LLM Code Llama. Feedback quality on buggy Java code was assessed using a combination of student evaluation, manual annotation and the automated metrics BLEU, ROUGE, and BERTScore. Our findings indicate that PEFT leads to notable improvements in feedback quality and significantly outperforms prompt engineering, providing an avenue for developing freely deployable feedback tools that can be effectively used to guide student learning. Student evaluation indicates that learners value the PEFT model's feedback and see it as being equally effective as the proprietary ChatGPT model. Participants suggested that incorporating additional explanation for technical terms in the PEFT model's feedback could be more beneficial. This study demonstrates that fine-tuned models can effectively support critical thinking and guide the design of scalable pedagogical systems.

Related papers

• SCRIBE: Structured Chain Reasoning for Interactive Behaviour Explanations using Tool Calling [9.113268651219187]
  SCRIBE is a framework for multi-hop, tool-augmented reasoning to generate valid responses to student questions about feedback reports.<n> Evaluation with a human-aligned GPT-Judge and a user study with 108 students shows that 8B-SCRIBE models achieve comparable or superior quality to much larger models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T10:17:05Z)
• Forgetting: A New Mechanism Towards Better Large Language Model Fine-tuning [51.92313556418432]
  Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) plays a critical role for pretrained large language models (LLMs)<n>We suggest categorizing tokens within each corpus into two parts -- positive and negative tokens -- based on whether they are useful to improve model performance.<n>We conduct experiments on well-established benchmarks, finding that this forgetting mechanism not only improves overall model performance and also facilitate more diverse model responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T11:22:23Z)
• A Systematic Literature Review of Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Large Code Models [2.171120568435925]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) for code require significant computational resources for training and fine-tuning.<n>To address this, the research community has increasingly turned to Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT)<n>PEFT enables the adaptation of large models by updating only a small subset of parameters, rather than the entire model.<n>Our study synthesizes findings from 28 peer-reviewed papers, identifying patterns in configuration strategies and adaptation trade-offs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T16:19:25Z)
• MathTutorBench: A Benchmark for Measuring Open-ended Pedagogical Capabilities of LLM Tutors [82.91830877219822]
  We present MathTutorBench, an open-source benchmark for holistic tutoring model evaluation.<n>MathTutorBench contains datasets and metrics that broadly cover tutor abilities as defined by learning sciences research in dialog-based teaching.<n>We evaluate a wide set of closed- and open-weight models and find that subject expertise, indicated by solving ability, does not immediately translate to good teaching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T08:43:47Z)
• Prompt-Based Cost-Effective Evaluation and Operation of ChatGPT as a Computer Programming Teaching Assistant [0.0]
  This article focuses on studying three aspects related to such an application.<n>The performance of two well-known models, GPT-3.5T and GPT-4T, in providing feedback to students is evaluated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T08:15:05Z)
• Automated Feedback in Math Education: A Comparative Analysis of LLMs for Open-Ended Responses [0.0]
  This study aims to explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in facilitating automated feedback in math education. We employ Mistral, a version of Llama catered to math, and fine-tune this model for evaluating student responses by leveraging a dataset of student responses and teacher-written feedback for middle-school math problems. We evaluate the model's performance in scoring accuracy and the quality of feedback by utilizing judgments from 2 teachers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T16:57:45Z)
• SIaM: Self-Improving Code-Assisted Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models [54.78329741186446]
  We propose a novel paradigm that uses a code-based critic model to guide steps including question-code data construction, quality control, and complementary evaluation. Experiments across both in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks in English and Chinese demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-28T06:33:03Z)
• Open Source Language Models Can Provide Feedback: Evaluating LLMs' Ability to Help Students Using GPT-4-As-A-Judge [4.981275578987307]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential for the automatic generation of feedback in a wide range of computing contexts. However, concerns have been voiced around the privacy and ethical implications of sending student work to proprietary models. This has sparked considerable interest in the use of open source LLMs in education, but the quality of the feedback that such open models can produce remains understudied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-08T17:57:39Z)
• Evaluating and Optimizing Educational Content with Large Language Model Judgments [52.33701672559594]
  We use Language Models (LMs) as educational experts to assess the impact of various instructions on learning outcomes. We introduce an instruction optimization approach in which one LM generates instructional materials using the judgments of another LM as a reward function. Human teachers' evaluations of these LM-generated worksheets show a significant alignment between the LM judgments and human teacher preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T09:09:15Z)
• Improving the Validity of Automatically Generated Feedback via Reinforcement Learning [46.667783153759636]
  We propose a framework for feedback generation that optimize both correctness and alignment using reinforcement learning (RL)<n>Specifically, we use GPT-4's annotations to create preferences over feedback pairs in an augmented dataset for training via direct preference optimization (DPO)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-02T20:25:50Z)
• Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanations [97.91630330328815]
  We conduct a crowdsourcing study, where participants interact with deception detection models that have been trained to distinguish between genuine and fake hotel reviews. We observe that for a linear bag-of-words model, participants with access to the feature coefficients during training are able to cause a larger reduction in model confidence in the testing phase when compared to the no-explanation control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-17T18:29:56Z)

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.