Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

Narrowing the Gap: Supervised Fine-Tuning of Open-Source LLMs as a Viable Alternative to Proprietary Models for Pedagogical Tools

Authors
Lorenzo Lee Solano,
Charles Koutcheme,
Juho Leinonen,
Alexandra Vassar,
Jake Renzella
Date
Publisher
arXiv
Frontier Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and Gemini can decipher cryptic compiler errors for novice programmers, but their computational scale, cost, and tendency to over-assist make them problematic for widespread pedagogical adoption. This work demonstrates that smaller, specialised language models, enhanced via Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), present a more viable alternative for educational tools. We utilise a new dataset of 40,000 C compiler error explanations, derived from real introductory programming (CS1/2) student-generated programming errors, which we used to fine-tune three open-source models: Qwen3-4B, Llama-3.1-8B, and Qwen3-32B. We performed a dual evaluation, combining expert human reviews with a large-scale automated analysis of 8,000 responses using a validated LLM-as-judge ensemble. Our results show that SFT significantly boosts the pedagogical quality of smaller models, achieving performance comparable to much larger models. We analyse the trade-offs between model size and quality, confirming that fine-tuning compact, efficient models on high-quality, domain-specific data is a potent strategy for creating specialised models to drive educational tools. We provide a replicable methodology to foster broader access to generative AI capabilities in educational contexts.
Study at a glance
  • Question: Can smaller, customized AI models explain coding errors to students as well as large commercial models?
  • Setting and data: 40,000 compiler error explanations based on errors from introductory programming (CS1/2) students.
  • Method: Evaluates AI models using expert human reviews and automated scoring of 8,000 responses (LLM-as-judge ensemble).
Why it matters

Frontier language models can decipher cryptic compiler errors for novice programmers. However, their computational scale, cost, and tendency to over-assist make them problematic for widespread pedagogical adoption.

Key findings
  • In introductory college programming, smaller AI models matched the instructional quality of much larger models when explaining student coding errors.
  • Tailoring smaller AI models with subject-specific data significantly boosted their educational quality without requiring excessive computing power.
  • Major commercial AI models decipher coding errors effectively for beginners, but they tend to over-assist learners and carry high operating costs.

Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?