Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored in higher education, yet their effectiveness as teaching agents remains underexamined. In this paper, we present the development of GuideLM, a fine-tuned LLM designed for programming education. GuideLM has been integrated into the Debugging C Compiler (DCC), an educational C compiler that leverages LLMs to generate pedagogically sound error explanations. Previously, DCC relied on off-the-shelf OpenAI models, which, while accurate, often over-assisted students by directly providing solutions despite contrary prompting. To address this, we employed supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on a dataset of 528 student-question/teacher-answer pairs, creating two models: GuideLM and GuideLM-mini, fine-tuned on ChatGPT-4o and 4o-mini, respectively. We conducted an expert analysis of 400 responses per model, comparing their pedagogical effectiveness against base OpenAI models. Our evaluation, grounded in constructivism and cognitive load theory, assessed factors such as conceptual scaffolding, clarity, and Socratic guidance. Results indicate that GuideLM and GuideLM-mini improve pedagogical performance, with an 8% increase in Socratic guidance and a 58% improvement in economy of words compared to GPT-4o. However, this refinement comes at the cost of a slight reduction in general accuracy. While further work is needed, our findings suggest that fine-tuning LLMs with targeted datasets is a promising approach for developing models better suited to educational contexts.

This paper investigates supervised fine-tuning of large language models (LLMs) to improve their pedagogical alignment in computing education, addressing concerns that LLMs may hinder learning outcomes. The project utilised a proprietary dataset of 2,500 high quality question/answer pairs from programming course forums, and explores two research questions: the suitability of university course forums in contributing to fine-tuning datasets, and how supervised fine-tuning can improve LLMs' alignment with educational principles such as constructivism. Initial findings suggest benefits in pedagogical alignment of LLMs, with deeper evaluations required.

As opposed to evaluating computation and logic-based reasoning, current benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in medicine are primarily focused on question-answering involving domain knowledge and descriptive reasoning. While such qualitative capabilities are vital to medical diagnosis, in real-world scenarios, doctors frequently use clinical calculators that follow quantitative equations and rule-based reasoning paradigms for evidence-based decision support. To this end, we propose MedCalc-Bench, a first-of-its-kind dataset focused on evaluating the medical calculation capability of LLMs. MedCalc-Bench contains an evaluation set of over 1000 manually reviewed instances from 55 different medical calculation tasks. Each instance in MedCalc-Bench consists of a patient note, a question requesting to compute a specific medical value, a ground truth answer, and a step-by-step explanation showing how the answer is obtained. While our evaluation results show the potential of LLMs in this area, none of them are effective enough for clinical settings. Common issues include extracting the incorrect entities, not using the correct equation or rules for a calculation task, or incorrectly performing the arithmetic for the computation. We hope our study highlights the quantitative knowledge and reasoning gaps in LLMs within medical settings, encouraging future improvements of LLMs for various clinical calculation tasks.

Clinical calculators play a vital role in healthcare by offering accurate evidence-based predictions for various purposes such as prognosis. Nevertheless, their widespread utilization is frequently hindered by usability challenges, poor dissemination, and restricted functionality. Augmenting large language models with extensive collections of clinical calculators presents an opportunity to overcome these obstacles and improve workflow efficiency, but the scalability of the manual curation process poses a significant challenge. In response, we introduce AgentMD, a novel language agent capable of curating and applying clinical calculators across various clinical contexts. Using the published literature, AgentMD has automatically curated a collection of 2,164 diverse clinical calculators with executable functions and structured documentation, collectively named RiskCalcs. Manual evaluations show that RiskCalcs tools achieve an accuracy of over 80% on three quality metrics. At inference time, AgentMD can automatically select and apply the relevant RiskCalcs tools given any patient description. On the newly established RiskQA benchmark, AgentMD significantly outperforms chain-of-thought prompting with GPT-4 (87.7% vs. 40.9% in accuracy). Additionally, we also applied AgentMD to real-world clinical notes for analyzing both population-level and risk-level patient characteristics. In summary, our study illustrates the utility of language agents augmented with clinical calculators for healthcare analytics and patient care.

In the challenging field of introductory programming, high enrollments and failure rates drive us to explore tools and systems to enhance student outcomes, especially automated tools that scale to large cohorts. This paper presents and evaluates the dcc --help tool, an integration of a Large Language Model (LLM) into the Debugging C Compiler (DCC) to generate unique, novice-focused explanations tailored to each error. dcc --help prompts an LLM with contextual information of compile- and run-time error occurrences, including the source code, error location and standard compiler error message. The LLM is instructed to generate novice-focused, actionable error explanations and guidance, designed to help students understand and resolve problems without providing solutions. dcc --help was deployed to our CS1 and CS2 courses, with 2,565 students using the tool over 64,000 times in ten weeks. We analysed a subset of these error/explanation pairs to evaluate their properties, including conceptual correctness, relevancy, and overall quality. We found that the LLM-generated explanations were conceptually accurate in 90% of compile-time and 75% of run-time cases, but often disregarded the instruction not to provide solutions in code. Our findings, observations and reflections following deployment indicate that dcc-help provides novel opportunities for scaffolding students' introduction to programming.