AI Assistants Overassist
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.21306v1
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:30:01 GMT
- Title: AI Assistants Overassist
- Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as tutors and thought partners, helping users reason through problems.<n>How AI systems navigate intervention decisions during problem-solving remains poorly understood.<n>Int-Bench simulates a "student" solving a problem while a "teacher" monitors the student's reasoning and decides whether, when, and how to intervene.
- Score: 11.910820103556574
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as tutors and thought partners, helping users reason through problems. While guidance from AI assistants can scaffold thinking and foster learning, such benefits depend on how they help--for instance, intervening too early or too frequently may hinder true learning and cognitive engagement. Yet how AI systems navigate intervention decisions during problem-solving remains poorly understood. Here, we introduce Int-Bench, a simulation-based benchmark for evaluating LLM interventions during learning. Int-Bench simulates a "student" solving a problem while a "teacher" monitors the student's reasoning and decides whether, when, and how to intervene. Across three domains--code debugging, mathematics, and brain teasers--we evaluate LLM teachers on the frequency and timing of interventions, as well as their impact on both immediate task success and generalization to new problems. We also compare LLMs to humans, finding that LLMs intervene more frequently and earlier than humans. Moreover, in contrast to humans, they tend to provide complete solutions rather than targeted hints. These findings suggest that current LLM assistants often optimize for short-term success rather than supporting the reasoning processes needed for deeper learning and long-term success.
Related papers
- LLM Pedagogical Behavior in AI Tutoring Interactions [2.7316402953904233]
Little is known about the level of assistance LLMs provide when students use them as tutors in authentic learning interactions.<n>We operationalize this dimension as scaffolding level and develop a five-level scale, validated against human annotations.<n>We apply the scale to 14,637 LLM responses from 203 students in a university AI course.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-08-24T08:57:40Z) - Reflective Dialogue or Prompt Refinement? Effects of Tutor Scaffolding on Students' Independent LLM Use for Programming [0.0]
Large Language Models (LLMs) can provide personalized support in learning.<n>This study examined how two types of LLM-based tutors shape students' prompting practices.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-07-03T13:15:36Z) - Large Language Models as Students Who Think Aloud: Overly Coherent, Verbose, and Confident [0.8564319625930894]
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in AI-based tutoring systems. Can they faithfully model novice reasoning and metacognitive judgments?<n>We evaluate LLMs as novices using 630 think-aloud utterances from chemistry tutoring problems with problem-solving logs of student hint use, attempts, and problem context.<n>We compare LLM-generated reasoning to human learner utterances under minimal and extended contextual prompting, and assess the models' ability to predict step-level learner success.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-02-01T04:46:38Z) - Thinker: Training LLMs in Hierarchical Thinking for Deep Search via Multi-Turn Interaction [57.67217258741752]
Thinker is a hierarchical thinking model for deep search through multi-turn interaction.<n>It decomposes complex problems into independently solvable sub-problems.<n> dependencies between sub-problems are passed as parameters via these logical functions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-11-11T07:48:45Z) - Multi-Agent Evolve: LLM Self-Improve through Co-evolution [53.00458074754831]
Reinforcement Learning (RL) has demonstrated significant potential in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Recent Self-Play RL methods, inspired by the success of the paradigm in games and Go, aim to enhance LLM reasoning capabilities without human-annotated data.<n>We propose Multi-Agent Evolve (MAE), a framework that enables LLMs to self-evolve in solving diverse tasks, including mathematics, reasoning, and general knowledge Q&A.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-27T17:58:02Z) - LLMs are Imperfect, Then What? An Empirical Study on LLM Failures in Software Engineering [38.20696656193963]
We conducted an observational study with 22 participants using ChatGPT as a coding assistant in a non-trivial software engineering task.
We identified the cases where ChatGPT failed, their root causes, and the corresponding mitigation solutions used by users.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-15T03:29:41Z) - Exploring Knowledge Tracing in Tutor-Student Dialogues using LLMs [49.18567856499736]
We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can be supportive of open-ended dialogue tutoring.<n>We apply a range of knowledge tracing (KT) methods on the resulting labeled data to track student knowledge levels over an entire dialogue.<n>We conduct experiments on two tutoring dialogue datasets, and show that a novel yet simple LLM-based method, LLMKT, significantly outperforms existing KT methods in predicting student response correctness in dialogues.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-24T22:31:39Z) - AI Meets the Classroom: When Do Large Language Models Harm Learning? [0.0]
We show that the effect of large language models (LLMs) on learning outcomes depends on usage behavior.<n>While LLMs show great potential to improve learning, their use must be tailored to the educational context.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-29T17:07:46Z) - Adversarial Math Word Problem Generation [6.92510069380188]
We propose a new paradigm for ensuring fair evaluation of large language models (LLMs)
We generate adversarial examples which preserve the structure and difficulty of the original questions aimed for assessment, but are unsolvable by LLMs.
We conduct experiments on various open- and closed-source LLMs, quantitatively and qualitatively demonstrating that our method significantly degrades their math problem-solving ability.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-27T22:07:52Z) - Small Models, Big Insights: Leveraging Slim Proxy Models To Decide When and What to Retrieve for LLMs [60.40396361115776]
This paper introduces a novel collaborative approach, namely SlimPLM, that detects missing knowledge in large language models (LLMs) with a slim proxy model.
We employ a proxy model which has far fewer parameters, and take its answers as answers.
Heuristic answers are then utilized to predict the knowledge required to answer the user question, as well as the known and unknown knowledge within the LLM.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-19T11:11:08Z) - Do Language Models Exhibit the Same Cognitive Biases in Problem Solving as Human Learners? [140.9751389452011]
We study the biases of large language models (LLMs) in relation to those known in children when solving arithmetic word problems.
We generate a novel set of word problems for each of these tests, using a neuro-symbolic approach that enables fine-grained control over the problem features.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-31T18:48:20Z) - Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate [85.3444184685235]
We propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution.
Our framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-30T15:25:45Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.