Instances occurred where the Teacher LLM directly provided the final answer, bypassing the intended cognitive process, and can be programmatically filtered¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Instances were identified where the Teacher LLM directly provided the final answer to the student agent, bypassing the intended cognitive process; because such answer-dictating knowledge lacks generalizability, the authors state these instances can be programmatically identified and filtered out during compilation. → Hyeongdon Moon 2026

Evidence¶

Hyeongdon Moon 2026¶

Hyeongdon Moon, Carolyn Rosé, and John Stamper. (2026). Cognitive Agent Compilation for Explicit Problem Solver Modeling. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.07040 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.07040

q1 · i? · design · r2

Authors' observation from the proof of concept (Section 6.5), termed collaborative cheating. They state that knowledge explicitly dictating a specific answer "lacks generalizability to other similar problems" and can be programmatically identified and filtered during compilation. No effect sizes are printed.

"Instances were identified where the Teacher LLM directly provided the final answer to the student agent, bypassing the intended cognitive process. This issue can be mitigated using the methodology discussed in Section 4.2."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Limiting verbose Math Agent guidance sharply reduced answer giveaway but decreased cognitive engagement — related
• Higher seed-problem filtering thresholds yield better downstream reasoning performance, indicating problem quality directly impacts results — related