Evaluating Language Models for Generating and Judging Programming Feedback

Purpose This study aims to explore the integration of large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) in robotics, highlighting their potential benefits and the safety challenges they introduce, including robustness issues, adversarial vulnerabilities, privacy concerns and ethical implications. Design/methodology/approach This survey conducts a comprehensive analysis of the safety risks associated with LLM- and VLM-powered robotic systems. The authors review existing literature, analyze key challenges, evaluate current mitigation strategies and propose future research directions. Findings The study identifies that ensuring the safety of LLM-/VLM-driven robots requires a multi-faceted approach. While current mitigation strategies address certain risks, gaps remain in real-time monitoring, adversarial robustness and ethical safeguards. Originality/value This study offers a structured and comprehensive overview of the safety challenges in LLM-/VLM-driven robotics. It contributes to ongoing discussions by integrating technical, ethical and regulatory perspectives to guide future advancements in safe and responsible artificial intelligence-driven robotics.

To evaluate the impact of constraining proprietary and open large language models (LLMs) to structured outputs in processing radiology request forms (RRF). We evaluated five LLMs-two proprietary (GPT-5-Thinking, Gemini 2.5 Pro) and three open (Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking, gpt-oss-120b, medgemma-27b-it)-on 100 RRFs (50 computed tomography, 50 magnetic resonance imaging). Each model processed cases with and without constraints to structured outputs. Endpoints included accuracy for modality, anatomical region, contrast phase, urgency, "all correct" (all four categories correct), and "indication improved" (clarity of rewritten text). Outputs were evaluated against a reference standard defined by board-certified radiologists and compared with two radiology residents (first-year and third-year). Accuracies with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Constraining to structured outputs had model-dependent effects: it improved Gemini 2.5 Pro (all correct: from 53.0% [43.3-62.5] to 66.0% [56.3-74.5]) but reduced GPT-5-Thinking accuracy (from 76.0% [66.8-83.3] to 53.0% [43.3-62.5]), with minimal influence on open models. Both proprietary LLMs outperformed the best open models (up to 41.0% [31.9-50.8]). All LLMs exceeded the unassisted first-year residents' performance (19.0% [12.5-27.8]). LLM assistance improved first-year residents' accuracy to 65.0% [55.3-73.6], approaching the third-year residents' performance (80.0% [71.1-86.7]), who performed comparably to the best LLMs. Across models, performance was highest for modality and anatomical region, and lowest for urgency. Indication reformulation was judged clearer in > 90% of cases across all models without hallucinations. Constraining to structured outputs exerted model-specific effects. Proprietary LLMs achieved the highest accuracy in RRF-based protocol selection and improved first-year resident performance to an experienced-resident level. LLMs may serve as valuable decision-support tools for radiology workflow. Constraining LLMs to structured outputs produced divergent, model-specific effects in radiology protocol selection-improving Gemini 2.5 Pro, reducing GPT-5-Thinking, and minimally affecting open models-highlighting the need for model-specific prompting strategies before adopting LLMs in radiology decision support. Structured output constraints affect LLM performance differently. Gemini 2.5 Pro benefits from structured prompting, while GPT-5-Thinking declines. Open-weight models show minimal impact from output constraining. Proprietary models outperform open models in radiology protocol selection.

Aim/Purpose: The study investigates the factors influencing the acceptance and utilisation of large language models (LLMs) (predictor variables of LLM usage), such as ChatGPT, in Learning design by instructional designers and university-teaching academics from various countries. Background: Large language models (LLMs) have exploded onto the scene, transforming the landscape of learning design. Instructional designers and university teaching academics have been overburdened with content creation for their teaching programmes, and the arrival of LLM models will help in this regard by developing more interactive content that drives student engagement and, in turn, contributes to student success. Since LLMs are a relatively new phenomenon, little is known about the factors influencing their acceptance in learning design; therefore, this research is needed, as learning design principles are the bedrock of student engagement and success. Methodology: A cross-sectional correlational quantitative study was employed. Data was collected using an online questionnaire posted on social media, including LinkedIn, from 203 instructional designers and university teaching academics. Purposive and snowball sampling methods were used to target instructional designers and university teaching academics at colleges and universities worldwide. Participants were asked to share the survey link with fellow instructional designers and university-teaching academics in their communities. The factor structure of the data was determined using exploratory factor analysis. Nonetheless, the factor structure derived from the LLMs did not entirely reflect the original configuration of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT3), as certain predictors appeared to coalesce, indicating LLMs’ unique nature in learning design. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to verify the fit of the data on the measurement model. First-order and second-order structural modelling were used to identify the structural relationships among the variables. Contribution: The study determines significant factors for the acceptance of LLMs by instructional designers and academic teaching staff in learning design, enabling possible opportunities for best practices in the field through interventions to optimize LLM usage. The study applies the technology acceptance model to the emerging LLM technology and extends the technology acceptance model by adding the trust construct as a predictor variable. Findings: The structural analysis results indicated that the ingrained LLM practices, LLM peer-driven expectations, innovative propensity towards LLM adoption, reliability and provider trust in LLMs, and ease of use and support influenced perceived LLM benefits and usage, but community standards and infrastructure had no influence. The second-order structural equation modelling indicated that perceived LLM benefits and usage and ingrained LLM habits contributed most to the learning design. Recommendations for Practitioners: Teaching academics and instructional designers must use LLMs in designing content, assessments, and interactive learning activities, and attend LLM training workshops on prompting and best practices in integrating LLMs into learning and teaching to see their benefits; hence, regular use of LLMs will then lead to trust and innovation in LLMs usage, enhancing learning design and improving student learning outcomes. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers must use mixed methods approaches to have a deeper understanding of the factors influencing LLMs. Since habit and perceived LLM benefits and usage contributed the most variance to learning design, researchers must investigate strategies that optimise these factors in learning design, such as effective intervention strategies that can help form positive LLM habits. In addition, the findings provide researchers with a starting point for future research. Further researchers must investigate interventions that optimise the influence of personal innovativeness and trust that contributed the least variance to learning design, hence unlocking the potential of LLMs in learning design through innovation, responsible, and ethical use. Impact on Society: The use of LLMs in learning design has a high possibility of transforming education, specifically the learning design landscape. Using LLMs will free up more time for teaching academics and instructional designers so that they spend more time on higher-order thinking skill demands. Consequently, the students will be exposed to more engaging and interactive content, resulting in improved learning outcomes. Future Research: Future research must include context-derived external variables in technology acceptance models, such as levels of prompting competencies, to provide a deeper understanding of LLMs. In addition, future research must be based on the application and impact of LLMs on student engagement and success, and their attainment of 21st-century skills.

Evaluating gpt-4 for zero-shot classification of bleeding and clotting events: Can large language models serve as second reviewers?

The paper studies the problem of software code migration during the transition from the old version of the SAP ERP 6.0 system to modern ERP platforms, in particular SAP S/4HANA. The necessity of automation of the migration process using artificial intelligence methods and tools is substantiated. A comprehensive analysis of existing academic and industrial case studies confirmed the feasibility of using large language models for code migration. A number of advantages of the approach based on large language models are revealed, in particular, the ability to handle various migration scenarios. The key risks and limitations common in the enterprise environment are highlighted, including data security, privacy, high cost of API calls and limited knowledge of models regarding the subject area. A method is developed for selecting a large open source language model that can be safely used in the enterprise landscape, thereby mitigating the risks associated with cloud solutions. The method is based on the developed system of criteria, including: model size, context window size, license type, support for fine-tuning training, focus on code quality (measured using a reference dataset), support for model quantization and community support. The hybrid AHP-TOPSIS method is proposed for systematic ranking of candidate models. The AHP method was used to check the weights of the criteria, while TOPSIS was used to rank the models based on their proximity to the ideal solution. Based on the developed method, three large language models were selected: Qwen 2.5 Coder 14B, DeepSeek-Coder-V2 16B and Llama 3.1 8B. A comprehensive testing plan for the selected models was developed for further experimental studies. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the development of a method for selecting large language models for custom code migration tasks, which differs from the existing system of model selection criteria and the use of a hybrid AHP-TOPSIS approach for ranking candidate models. The practical value of the work is that the developed method allows you to select a model taking into account the constraints of the corporate environment and information security requirements, which will increase the level of automation in the migration of AVAP when switching to new versions of ERP systems from SAP SE. The developed method can be applied to the selection of large language models when upgrading any large computer systems developed in both open source and proprietary programming languages.

Handling long tail corner cases is a major challenge faced by autonomous vehicles (AVs). While large language models (LLMs) hold great potentials to handle the corner cases with excellent generalization and explanation capabilities and received increasing research interest on application to autonomous driving, there are still technical barriers to be tackled, such as strict model performance and huge computing resource requirements of LLMs, which are difficult to be met locally at AVs. In this paper, we investigate a new approach of applying remote or edge LLMs to support autonomous driving. With this approach connected autonomous vehicles (CAVs) send driving assistance requests to the LLMs. LLMs deployed at the edge of the networks or remote clouds process the requests and generate driving assistance instructions for the CAVs. A key issue for such LLM assisted driving system is the assessment of LLMs on their understanding of driving theory and skills, ensuring they are qualified to undertake safety critical driving assistance tasks for CAVs. As there is no published work on assessing LLM of driving theory and skills, we design and run driving theory tests for several proprietary LLM models (OpenAI GPT models, Baidu Ernie and Ali QWen) and open-source LLM models (Tsinghua MiniCPM-2B and MiniCPM-Llama3-V2.5) with more than 500 multiple-choices theory test questions. These questions are close to the official UK driving theory test ones. Model accuracy, cost and processing latency are measured from the experiments. Experiment results show that while model GPT-4 passes the test with improved domain knowledge and Ernie has an accuracy of 85% (just below the 86% passing threshold), other LLM models including GPT-3.5 fail the test. For the test questions with images, the multimodal model GPT4-o has an excellent accuracy result of 96%, and the MiniCPM-Llama3-V2.5 achieves an accuracy of 76%. While GPT-4 holds stronger potential for CAV driving assistance applications, the cost of using model GPT4 is much higher, almost 50 times of that of using GPT3.5. The results can help make decision on the use of the existing LLMs for CAV applications and balancing on the model performance and cost.

While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in medical text analysis, their application in automated medical billing code extraction remains underexplored, particularly for the German medical fee schedule system (GOÄ). Therefore, an LLM was fine-tuned to perform multi-label classification of GOÄ codes from radiology reports automatically, and its performance was compared with state-of-the-art commercial and open-source LLMs. Following ethics committee approval, we analyzed 499,601 radiology reports from 124,497 patients, containing 1,799,971 manually identified GOÄ codes as ground truth. The MediPhi-Instruct 4B model was fine-tuned using five-fold cross-validation. Performance was evaluated on the hold-out test set and compared against GPT-5, GPT-4.1, GPT-oss, Kimi-K2, Deepseek-R1, Deepseek-V3, Gemini 2.5, Llama-70B, and Qwen-3 LLMs on a subset of 500 anonymized and 350 cleaned reports using zero-shot and few-shot prompting techniques. The fine-tuned model achieved an accuracy of 77.15% ± 0.47% and a micro-average F1-score of 87.79% ± 0.31% on the hold-out test set. On a subset of 500 real-world samples, our models outperformed the best-performing LLM, Gemini 2.5 Flash, with an F1-score of 70.32% ± 1.54% compared to 58.22% ± 1.50% (p < 0.001). For the cleaned dataset of 350 samples, GPT-5 achieved the best F1-score of 89.51 ± 1.52% and outperformed the fine-tuned models (p < 0.001). Fine-tuned LLMs can effectively automate GOÄ code classification from radiology reports, with the potential of outperforming commercial LLMs. This approach shows promise for improving billing efficiency and accuracy in healthcare settings, though manual verification is still recommended. Question LLMs with high parameters possess medical knowledge, but how effective are they at predicting billing codes from radiology reports compared to smaller, fine-tuned models? Finidngs A fine-tuned ensemble model achieved competitive results and can outperform larger, proprietary LLMs. Clinical relevance Smaller, fine-tuned models offer an efficient alternative to proprietary LLMs in generating billing codes and can be integrated to assist clinical coding. This technology has the potential to transform clinical billing procedures, but its use should be overseen by qualified professional personnel.

The subject of the study is the analysis and improvement of methods for determining the relevance of project names to the information content of purchases using large language models. The object of the study is a database containing the names of projects and purchases in the field of electric power industry, collected from open sources. The author examines in detail such aspects of the topic as the use of TF-IDF and cosine similarity metrics for primary data filtering, and also describes in detail the integration and evaluation of the effectiveness of large language models such as GigaChat, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 in text data matching tasks. Special attention is paid to the methods of clarifying the similarity of names based on reflection introduced into the prompta of large language models, which makes it possible to increase the accuracy of data comparison. The study uses TF-IDF and cosine similarity methods for primary data analysis, as well as large GigaChat, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 language models for detailed verification of the relevance of project names and purchases, including reflection in model prompta to improve the accuracy of results. The novelty of the research lies in the development of a combined approach to determining the relevance of project names and purchases, combining traditional methods of processing text information (TF-IDF, cosine similarity) with the capabilities of large language models. A special contribution of the author to the research of the topic is the proposed methodology for improving the accuracy of data comparison by clarifying the results of primary selection using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models with optimized prompta, including reflection. The main conclusions of the study are confirmation of the prospects of using the developed approach in the tasks of information support for procurement processes and project implementation, as well as the possibility of using the results obtained for the development of text data mining systems in various sectors of the economy. The study showed that the use of language models makes it possible to improve the value of the F2 measure to 0.65, which indicates a significant improvement in the quality of data comparison compared with basic methods.

Readability &amp; quality of large language model responses in CAR-T patient education

IntroductionRecent artificial intelligence (AI) advances can generate human-like responses to a wide range of queries, making them a useful tool for healthcare applications. Therefore, the potential use of large language models (LLMs) in controlled environments regarding efficacy, reproducibility, and operability will be of paramount interest.ObjectiveWe investigated if and how GPT 3.5 and GPT 4 models can be directly used as a part of a GxP validated system and compared the performance of externally hosted GPT 3.5 and GPT 4 against LLMs, which can be hosted internally. We explored zero-shot LLM performance for named entity recognition (NER) and relation extraction tasks, investigated which LLM has the best zero-shot performance to be used potentially for generating training data proposals, evaluated the LLM performance of seven entities for medical NER in zero-shot experiments, selected one model for further performance improvement (few-shot and fine-tuning: Zephyr-7b-beta), and investigated how smaller open-source LLMs perform in contrast to GPT models and to a small fine-tuned T5 Base.MethodsWe performed reproducibility experiments to evaluate if LLMs can be used in controlled environments and utilized guided generation to use the same prompt across multiple models. Few-shot learning and quantized low rank adapter (QLoRA) fine-tuning were applied to further improve LLM performance.Results and ConclusionWe demonstrated that zero-shot GPT 4 performance is comparable with a fine-tuned T5, and Zephyr performed better than zero-shot GPT 3.5, but the recognition of product combinations such as product event combination was significantly better by using a fine-tuned T5. Although Open AI launched recently GPT versions to improve the generation of consistent output, both GPT variants failed to demonstrate reproducible results. The lack of reproducibility together with limitations of external hosted systems to keep validated systems in a state of control may affect the use of closed and proprietary models in regulated environments. However, due to the good NER performance, we recommend using GPT for creating annotation proposals for training data as a basis for fine-tuning.

Several recent works seek to develop foundation models specifically for medical applications, adapting general-purpose large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) via continued pretraining on publicly available biomedical corpora.These works typically claim that such domain-adaptive pretraining (DAPT) improves performance on downstream medical tasks, such as answering medical licensing exam questions.In this paper, we compare seven public "medical" LLMs and two VLMs against their corresponding base models, arriving at a different conclusion: all medical VLMs and nearly all medical LLMs fail to consistently improve over their base models in the zero-/few-shot prompting regime for medical question-answering (QA) tasks.For instance, across the tasks and model pairs we consider in the 3-shot setting, medical LLMs only outperform their base models in 12.1% of cases, reach a (statistical) tie in 49.8% of cases, and are significantly worse than their base models in the remaining 38.2% of cases.Our conclusions are based on (i) comparing each medical model head-to-head, directly against the corresponding base model; (ii) optimizing the prompts for each model separately; and (iii) accounting for statistical uncertainty in comparisons.While these basic practices are not consistently adopted in the literature, our ablations show that they substantially impact conclusions.Our findings suggest that state-of-the-art generaldomain models may already exhibit strong medical knowledge and reasoning capabilities, and offer recommendations to strengthen the conclusions of future studies.

Large language models (LLMs) have made a significant impact on the fields of general artificial intelligence. General purpose LLMs exhibit strong logic and reasoning skills and general world knowledge but can sometimes generate misleading results when prompted on specific subject areas. LLMs trained with domain-specific knowledge can reduce the generation of misleading information (i.e. hallucinations) and enhance the precision of LLMs in specialized contexts. Training new LLMs on specific corpora however can be resource intensive. Here we explored the use of a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) model which we tested on literature specific to a biomedical research area. OpenAI's GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Microsoft's Prometheus, and a custom RAG model were used to answer 19 questions pertaining to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) disease biology and treatment. Eight independent reviewers assessed LLM responses based on accuracy, relevance, and readability, rating responses on a 3-point scale for each category. These scores were then used to compare LLM performance. The performance of the LLMs varied across scoring categories. On accuracy and relevance, the RAG model outperformed other models with higher scores on average and the most top scores across questions. GPT-4 was more comparable to the RAG model on relevance versus accuracy. By the same measures, GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 had the highest scores for readability of answers when compared to the other LLMs. GPT-4 and 3.5 also had more answers with hallucinations than the other LLMs, due to non-existent references and inaccurate responses to clinical questions. Our findings suggest that an oncology research-focused RAG model may outperform general-purpose LLMs in accuracy and relevance when answering subject-related questions. This framework can be tailored to Q&A in other subject areas. Further research will help understand the impact of LLM architectures, RAG methodologies, and prompting techniques in answering questions across different subject areas.

In this article, we discuss ethical issues related to using and disclosing artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT and other systems based on large language models (LLMs), to write or edit scholarly manuscripts. Some journals, such as Science , have banned the use of LLMs because of the ethical problems they raise concerning responsible authorship. We argue that this is not a reasonable response to the moral conundrums created by the use of LLMs because bans are unenforceable and would encourage undisclosed use of LLMs. Furthermore, LLMs can be useful in writing, reviewing and editing text, and promote equity in science. Others have argued that LLMs should be mentioned in the acknowledgments since they do not meet all the authorship criteria. We argue that naming LLMs as authors or mentioning them in the acknowledgments are both inappropriate forms of recognition because LLMs do not have free will and therefore cannot be held morally or legally responsible for what they do. Tools in general, and software in particular, are usually cited in-text, followed by being mentioned in the references. We provide suggestions to improve APA Style for referencing ChatGPT to specifically indicate the contributor who used LLMs (because interactions are stored on personal user accounts), the used version and model (because the same version could use different language models and generate dissimilar responses, e.g., ChatGPT May 12 Version GPT3.5 or GPT4), and the time of usage (because LLMs evolve fast and generate dissimilar responses over time). We recommend that researchers who use LLMs: (1) disclose their use in the introduction or methods section to transparently describe details such as used prompts and note which parts of the text are affected, (2) use in-text citations and references (to recognize their used applications and improve findability and indexing), and (3) record and submit their relevant interactions with LLMs as supplementary material or appendices.

LLMs application to clinical practice is growing fast. However, LLMs are less studied in geriatrics practice but are urgently needed. This symposium will address whether LLMs allocation to geriatric practice can be trusted via five approaches. 1) LLMs generated gender and race-biased outputs. We will demonstrate whether LLMs generated age-biased output by assessing their geriatric attitude evaluated by social workers. 2). LLMs passed USMLE and other examinations. We will demonstrate whether LLMs can pass geriatrics knowledge competence tests evaluated by geriatricians 3). LLMs performed well on clinical vignettes from different clinical disciplines. We will demonstrate whether LLMs can perform well on geriatrics 5M-based vignettes of older adults evaluated by clinical providers and trainees 4) LLMs reviewed and summarized clinical charts. We will demonstrate whether LLMs can review geriatrics and general medicine notes to extract Mobility (one of Geriatrics 5Ms) documentation evaluated by geriatricians 5). LLMs can generate deprescribing recommendations, tapering schedules, and patient education materials. We will demonstrate their accuracy, safety, and appropriateness compared to recommendations from a multidisciplinary team of pharmacists, geriatricians, and nurses. Specifically, this symposium will address the following topics: 1) Geriatric Attitude of ChatGPT4.o and Its Evaluation by Social Workers. 2) ChatGPT4.o Geriatrics Knowledge Competency and Its Evaluation by Geriatricians. 3) LLMs application to geriatrics 5Ms evaluated by clinical providers and trainees. 4) Using LLMs to Extract and Assess Mobility Documentation for Age-Friendly Health System evaluated by geriatricians. 5) Using LLMs to generate medication deprescribing recommendations compared to clinician-led deprescribing recommendations.

Introduction Advances in large language models (LLMs) have opened new avenues for healthcare applications. Recently, ChatGPT-4 successfully achieved the pass mark &amp;gt;80% in 5 of 10 sleep medicine examination domains, indicating a strong foundational knowledge of sleep medicine. However, the ability to answer USMLE-type multiple-choice questions may not equate to the capacity to offer accurate and comprehensive answers to clinical queries or real-world case scenarios. Current literature exhibits a significant gap in validation research examining the clinical utility of LLMs in evidence-based medicine practice. This investigation aims to evaluate the potential usefulness and reliability of LLMs as adjunctive clinical decision-support tools (namely, “curbside consultants”) in sleep medicine. Methods Six clinical sleep queries and six case scenarios were presented to 6 LLMs including 3 general-purpose LLMs (ChatGPT-4o, Gemini-1.5-Pro, and Llama-3.1-405B) and 3 medical-specialized LLMs (OpenEvidence, Clara AI, and MediGPT). Performance assessment was conducted independently utilizing two independently developed 5-point Likert scales evaluating two primary domains: answer content (accuracy, relevance, comprehensiveness/depth, clarity/coherence, and unique insightfulness) and reference quality (accuracy, relevance, currentness, comprehensiveness/depth, and searchability). Benchmark answers were established through consensus among four sleep medicine specialists. Analysis of variance was used to compare the performance of the LLMs. Results The medical LLMs demonstrated superior overall performance compared to the general LLMs (P&amp;lt; 0.001). The primary distinction was observed in reference quality metrics, where medical LLMs significantly outperformed general LLMs across all parameters: accuracy, relevance, and searchability (p&amp;lt; 0.001), currentness (p=0.001), and comprehensiveness/depth (p=0.010). Notably, Open Evidence achieved the highest reference quality (p&amp;lt; 0.001). In contrast, the answer content analysis revealed no significant overall differences between medical and general LLMs (p=0.659). Most answer content-related metrics, including accuracy, relevance, or unique insightfulness, did not differ significantly (p&amp;gt;0.050). An exception was clarify/coherence, where medical LLMs were superior to general LLMs (p=0.030). Furthermore, MediGPT and ChatGPT-4o displayed better content comprehensiveness/depth relative to other LLMs (p&amp;lt; 0.001). These two LLMs exhibited comparable performance in overall metrics (p=0.615), answer contents (p=0.922), and reference quality (p=0.621). Conclusion Both medical-specialized and general-purpose LLMs show promise as adjunctive decision-support tools in clinical practice. However, substantial improvements in reference quality are critically needed across most LLM platforms. Support (if any)