探索全球前沿学术脉络

Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Shadowing Program for Medical Students in the Basic Sciences Phase

Introduction Shadowing, as an educational method based on active observation, can foster a realistic understanding of professional roles and enhance the communication skills of medical students. This study aimed to design, implement, and evaluate a shadowing program for basic sciences medical students. Methods This development study was conducted based on the ADDIE model in five phases. The study population consisted of 799 medical students in semesters 2 to 5. The stages included Analysis (determining needs through literature review and expert panels), Design (specifying learning environments and evaluation methods), Development (preparing guides and educational tools), Implementation (within the Medical Ethics course), and Evaluation (using questionnaires and reflection forms). Findings This study aimed to design and evaluate an educational shadowing program based on the ADDIE model. In the Analysis phase, the profiles of 799 students and learning objectives were determined. In the Design phase, a structured program for four types of shadowing was designed. In the Development phase, all guides and educational tools were prepared. In the Implementation phase, the program was carried out with complete coverage and adherence to ethical considerations. Finally, the program evaluation showed that "Motivation to become a good physician" (3.75-3.95) and "Enhancing empathy" (3.50-3.94) received the highest scores, while "Increasing understanding of the basic science-clinical connection" (2.53-2.89) and "Willingness to attend on holidays" (1.87-2.31) received the lowest scores. Conclusion The findings indicate that implementing the shadowing program is an effective method for strengthening the professional attitudes and academic motivation of medical students. However, the program did not significantly improve students perception of the basic science-clinical connection, indicating a need for curricular refinement. The continuation and extension of this program to other levels and fields of medical sciences are recommended.

Multi-User Dueling Bandits: A Fair Approach using Nash Social Welfare

arXiv:2605.01961v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Learning from human preference data is becoming a useful tool, from fine-tuning large language models to training reinforcement learning agents. However, in most scenarios, the model is trained on the average preference of all human evaluators, which, under large variations of preferences, can be unfair to minority groups. In this work, we consider fairness in dueling bandits, a standard framework for online learning from preference data. We assume that each user has a (potentially distinct) Condorcet winner, which is an arm preferred to every other arm. Using these user-specific Condorcet winners as reference points, we evaluate and score arms according to their performance relative to the corresponding winner. To promote fairness across heterogeneous users, we adopt the well-established Nash Social Welfare objective, which maximizes the product of user utilities, thereby inherently penalizing inequality and preventing the marginalization of any single user. Within this framework, we construct a hard instance to establish a regret lower bound of $\Omega(T^{2/3}\min(K,D)^\frac{1}{3})$ for a time horizon $T$, $K$ arms, and $D$ users, which, to the best of our knowledge, is the first result quantifying the cost of fairness in dueling bandits with heterogeneous preferences. We then present the Fair-Explore-Then-Commit and Fair-$\epsilon$-Greedy algorithms with a Condorcet winner identification phase. We further derive their regret upper bounds that match the lower-bound dependence on $T$ up to logarithmic factors.

Accuracy and Satisfaction in Multi-Turn LLM Dialogues for NFR Assessment

arXiv:2606.24834v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based dialogue assistants have become mainstream tools for software developers, yet current evaluation benchmarks focus exclusively on functional correctness. This leaves a critical gap in assessing the quality and accuracy of these conversations when handling Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs), which are inherently vague, context-dependent, and involve many parts of a program. Evaluating how well these systems support collaborative reasoning about NFRs requires methods that go beyond single-turn accuracy to capture both the correctness of the system's outputs and the quality of the multi-turn interaction. In this paper, we investigate the accuracy and quality of multi-turn conversations between developers and an LLM-based agent in the domain of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulatory compliance. We hired 49 programmers to interact with GitHub Copilot to assess 148 HIPAA-derived NFRs against the iTrust codebase, a system designed to comply with HIPAA regulations, across three dimensions: requirement satisfaction level, reasoning, and code localization. We find that developers tend to agree with LLM assessments, but accuracy against expert ground truth is low. We model user satisfaction and find that longer system responses and more information-providing turns negatively affect user satisfaction, whereas proactive interactions positively affect it. Our findings provide insights for designing LLM-based dialogue systems that support NFR assessment.