Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 90 references

When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read High-scoring AI models can still be poor teachers.

desk verdict A genuinely useful two-phase protocol and dataset, but the central transfer claim lacks a same-task no-AI control, so the headline outliers are not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05579 v2 pith:D6DHMJDW submitted 2025-06-05 cs.AI cs.CLcs.HC

Quan Shi , Carlos E. Jimenez , Shunyu Yao , Nick Haber , Diyi Yang , Karthik Narasimhan This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.HC
keywords knowledgetransferhuman-AIcollaborationlargelanguagemodelsexplainabilitytwo-phaseevaluationKITEhumanstudyreasoning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces Knowledge Integration and Transfer Evaluation (KITE), a two-phase experimental framework that measures whether reasoning models can teach humans to solve problems they could not solve alone. It reports on a study of 118 participants who first brainstorm strategies with an AI and then implement solutions without any AI access. The central finding is that a model's solo benchmark score correlates only loosely with how much human partners learn from it: some mid-tier models produce large collaborative gains, while some top scorers do not. The authors argue that knowledge transfer is a distinct capability that must be evaluated and optimized separately from raw reasoning ability. This matters because as models get harder to interpret, the gap between what they know and what they can convey may widen.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is KITE's two-phase protocol plus the representational framing behind it. Phase 1 (collaborative ideation) lets human and model discuss solution strategies while guards forbid code, pseudocode, calculations, and note-taking, so only conceptual reasoning can be transferred. Phase 2 (independent solving) removes the chat and requires the human to implement or calculate the full solution alone, with correctness judged by passing test cases or exact answers. Conceptually, the paper models each agent's knowledge as a representation space ($M$ and $H$) and defines transfer as a projection $\Pi_{M\to H}(k_M)$ that maps model-exclusive knowledge into a form the human can internalize and re-apply. The protocol is designed to isolate whether such a projection occurred by making Phase 2 success depend on genuine understanding rather than memorization or retrieval.

What would settle it

Run the identical two-phase protocol with a control arm in which participants spend the same time re-reading the problem statement or discussing with another human instead of an AI. If the control group solves at the same rate as the collaboration group on the calibrated difficulty band, the measured transfer would be an artifact of problem exposure and time-on-task rather than model explanations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that human-AI knowledge transfer does not automatically track model capability. Across 578 problem-solving trajectories in coding and competition math, collaborative solve rates after restricted explanation correlate with solo model performance (r=0.84 for code, r=0.69 for math) but with significant outliers: GPT-4o raised code solve rates by 23.3 points despite 16.7 percent solo accuracy, while Gemini-2.5-Pro, with 81.3 percent solo accuracy, showed a 10-point drop in collaborative efficacy. In math, Claude-3.7-Sonnet produced a 60.9-point transfer gain from only 20.8 percent solo accuracy. The slope of the performance-transfer relationship lies below unity, so transfer effectiveness improves more slowly than reasoning ability. The authors interpret these results as evidence that effective communication of reasoning, which they model as projections from the model's representation space into the human's, is a separate objective requiring dedicated evaluation and optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The study assumes that, because tasks were calibrated 200-400 Elo (code) or 0.75-1.25 (math) above a participant's estimated skill, Phase 2 successes are attributable to what the model explained in Phase 1; without a no-AI control on the same problem set, that causal link is not directly tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Model evaluation should include a transfer metric, not just solo accuracy, since a high-scoring model can underperform mid-tier models in collaboration.
  • Post-training objectives focused on verifiable rewards may improve internal reasoning without improving communicative alignment, so transfer gains need their own optimization signal.
  • User preference cannot serve as a proxy for transfer quality: preference and collaborative success correlate at 0.86 overall but only 0.14 (non-significant) in math, where users sometimes prefer models that help them less.
  • Collaborative AI should adapt explanation style to the skill hierarchy; scaffolding that helps novices can frustrate experts, so a one-size-fits-all communication strategy leaves transfer on the table.
  • The measured below-unity slope implies that as models scale, the gap between capability and teachability will widen unless explicitly addressed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct no-AI control condition on the same calibrated tasks would let the authors estimate the counterfactual solve rate and turn their correlational outliers into causal transfer sizes; absent that, the reported transfer gains mix new learning with whatever participants could already do.
  • The same two-phase design could be adapted to measure transfer of process skills, such as debugging strategy or representation choice, rather than single-problem success, which would test whether explanations generalize across problem instances.
  • The divergence between preference and transfer in math suggests that models optimized for human approval may be trained toward fluent but shallow explanations, making an explicit transfer reward a plausible corrective.
  • If KITE were run longitudinally, one could measure whether Phase 1 exposure produces durable skill gains on held-out problems of the same type, separating task-specific memorization from genuine capability transfer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Knowledge Integration and Transfer Evaluation (KITE), a two-phase protocol for measuring knowledge transfer from LLMs to humans. In Phase 1, 118 participants collaborate with one of eight LLMs on competitive coding and mathematics problems, and in Phase 2 they attempt the same problem independently, without access to the model or the transcript. The authors compare model solo accuracy with human-plus-model collaborative solve rates (Table 2), report positive correlations with notable outliers (e.g., Claude-3.7-Sonnet math +60.9, Gemini-2.5-Pro code -10.0), and conclude that benchmark performance does not automatically translate into effective knowledge transfer, so transfer requires dedicated optimization. They also present Bradley-Terry preference win rates, skill-hierarchy breakdowns, covariate analyses, and qualitative interaction clusters. Code, data, and an evaluation framework are released.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper would make a valuable contribution to human-AI collaboration evaluation: it challenges the assumption that stronger reasoning models are better communicators, and it offers a reusable two-phase methodology plus qualitative taxonomies of interaction success and failure. The study's large participant count (N=118) for a human study, the use of both objective and subjective metrics, and the public release of code and data are notable strengths. However, the central quantitative evidence currently lacks a same-task no-AI control, per-model uncertainty quantification, and a reported accounting of filtered trajectories, so the headline claim about inconsistent knowledge transfer is not yet fully supported. The conceptual M/H/projection framework is explicitly illustrative and does not drive the numerical results, which is appropriately disclosed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, §4.2, Table 2] The central interpretation of the H+M column as knowledge transferred from the model requires that participants could not solve the Phase 2 tasks without Phase 1, but the manuscript reports no no-AI control on the same task set or participant pool. Section 4.2 calibrates tasks to a band 200–400 Elo (coding) or 0.75–1.25 (math) above the participant's estimated skill, and Section 7 cites screening and post-task surveys, but neither provides a baseline solve rate. Because the five-task Elo estimation with K=64 is noisy and the public LeetCode/AMC problems may be familiar, the H+M−M deltas in Table 2 (e.g., Claude-3.7-Sonnet math +60.9, GPT-4o code +23.3, Gemini code −10.0) could be inflated or deflated by task- and participant-level difficulty rather than by the model's explanatory quality. Please report a no-AI baseline or, at minimum, a sensitivity analysis showing the outlier ordering under a range of plausible independent solve rates, and adjust the causal wording accordingly.
  2. [§5, Table 2, Figure 1] Table 2 reports all accuracy values as percentages without confidence intervals, exact per-model trajectory counts, or significance tests. With 300 coding and 278 math trajectories divided across eight models, each cell is based on roughly 35–40 observations, so a reported difference of 10–15 percentage points can be within binomial sampling error; the standard error for a 50% rate at n=37 is about 8 percentage points. The outliers that drive the paper's main claim—for example Gemini code (−10.0) and Claude math (+60.9)—are therefore not shown to be reliable. Similarly, the correlations (r=0.84 code, r=0.69 math) and the sub-unity slope claim in Figure 1 are reported without confidence intervals or fitted slope uncertainty. Please add binomial confidence intervals, exact Ns, and significance tests on the deltas or residuals, with multiple-comparison correction.
  3. [§4.1, Appendix C.4] The protocol removes 'user interaction data where models emit forbidden content' post-hoc, but the manuscript never reports how many trajectories were removed, which models produced them, or whether removal is correlated with Phase 2 outcomes. The secondary-checker rule-compliance evaluation is described in Appendix C.4, but no audit statistics are given. If forbidden outputs occur more often for some models or in some difficulty bands, the filtered H+M rates are not directly comparable across models. Please report the filtering counts by model and rerun the key analyses both with and without the filtered data.
  4. [§4.2, Table 2] The model solo column (M) is computed as a task being solvable if at least one of three zero-shot completions is correct, whereas the H+M rate is per human trajectory with up to 5 or 10 submission attempts. Comparing a max-of-three success rate against a single-trajectory rate conflates reliability with capability and can bias both the deltas and the Figure 1 slope estimate. Please report the model solo rate under the same success metric as the human trajectory, or quantitatively justify why the max-of-three rate is the appropriate comparator.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5, Knowledge Transfer v. Subjective Preferences] The text reports 'a much weaker, non-significant correlation in math (r=0.14, p<0.05)'; this is internally inconsistent because p<0.05 is conventionally significant. Please correct either the p-value or the characterization.
  2. [§4.3, Table 1, §6.3] The HTM/HMT/MHT skill-hierarchy notation is inconsistent: §4.3 defines HTM as Human > Task > Model, Table 1's caption writes HTM (Human < Task < Model), and §6.3 calls HTM 'Human-Teaches-Model' while describing the human as less skilled than the model. Please standardize the definition and use it consistently throughout.
  3. [Appendix C.8] The mapping from self-reported experience to the initial Elo rating used in §4.2 is not described; please include the conversion table, since the difficulty calibration bands and test-time pairing depend on this mapping.
  4. [Table 2] The model abbreviations are inconsistent (e.g., 'Gem-25' vs 'Gemini-2.5-pro', 'DS-V3' vs 'Deepseek-V3', 'Cld-3.7' vs 'Claude-3.7-Sonnet'); please align abbreviations across Table 2, Figure 1, and the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline transfer result is an empirical contrast of independently measured solve rates, not a quantity derived from its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that model benchmark performance correlates with collaborative outcomes but with significant outliers, so knowledge transfer requires dedicated optimization—rests on directly measured Phase 2 solve rates (H+M in Table 2) compared with zero-shot model solo accuracy (M). No fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction: the Elo calibration in Section 4.2 selects task difficulty but does not enter the H+M or M statistics, and no equation defines transfer as model performance. The M/H/projection framework in Section 3 is explicitly non-operational ('these are illustrative abstractions—difficult to precisely measure in practice') and does not feed the quantitative analysis. Self-citations ([25], [44], [46]) support only background claims about benchmarks; they are not load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work by the same authors. The main vulnerability, flagged in Section 7's Limitations, is that Phase 2 success is interpreted as knowledge transferred from Phase 1 without a same-task no-AI control; the paper's own limitation statement says the assumption is 'supported by screening for baseline proficiency, calibrating task difficulty just beyond participants' independent ability, and post-task surveys' rather than by a direct baseline. That is an internal-validity limitation, not a circular derivation: it questions whether H+M isolates transfer, but it does not make the reported correlation or outlier pattern equivalent to the paper's inputs. Because no specific circular step can be quoted, the circularity score is low; the value 1 merely reflects the minor non-load-bearing self-citations and the acknowledged isolation assumption, not any identified circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central quantitative claims rest on calibration constants and domain assumptions rather than physical first principles. The free parameters set which tasks participants receive and how skill is modeled; the assumptions define what Phase 2 success is taken to mean. The invented M/H/projection vocabulary is explicitly non-operational and does not bear the empirical weight.

free parameters (6)
  • Coding Elo update constants K=64, S=200 = K=64, S=200
    Chosen by the authors; determines how quickly human skill ratings move, which affects which tasks are later paired with models (Section C.8).
  • Math Elo update constants K=0.8, S=1 = K=0.8, S=1
    Chosen by the authors; controls human skill calibration for math and therefore the task sampling band (Section C.8).
  • Coding test-time difficulty band = +200 to +400 Elo above current user
    Authors' calibration margin for selecting coding problems in the transfer measurement (Section 4.2).
  • Math test-time difficulty band = +0.75 to +1.25 Elo above current user
    Authors' calibration margin for selecting math problems in the transfer measurement (Section 4.2).
  • Model skill comparison threshold = top 25% of problems solved by the model
    Arbitrary quantile used to compare human and model skill fairly; not derived from a benchmark (Section 4.2).
  • Initial human Elo mapping from self-report = Not specified in preprint
    Self-reported expertise is converted to an initial Elo rating, but the exact mapping is not described; it shapes the first adaptive tasks and downstream pairing (Section 4.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Phase 2 success indicates knowledge transferred from the model, given calibrated task difficulty and restrictions on notes and access.
    Load-bearing; without a no-AI control on the same tasks, the attribution of Phase 2 success to Phase 1 transfer rests on the calibration assumption (Sections 4.1, 4.2).
  • domain assumption External Elo ratings from LeetCode and AoPS are valid measures of problem difficulty.
    Used to calibrate human skill and sample tasks; if these ratings are noisy, the above-skill band does not guarantee a genuine transfer opportunity (Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption The secondary checker model accurately detects forbidden code, pseudocode, or calculations in model responses.
    Post-hoc filtering assumes the checker is reliable; missed or false violations change which interactions are analyzed (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Participants do not obtain external help and their motivation is genuine.
    The protocol prohibits internet use, notes, and transcript access, but compliance is not verified per session; incentives are designed to encourage effort (Sections 4.1, 4.3).
  • domain assumption For each task, some projection of model reasoning could enable a human to solve it.
    Explicitly stated as unverifiable in the Limitations; if no such projection exists for some tasks, low collaborative solve rates may reflect impossibility rather than poor transfer.
invented entities (1)
  • Knowledge regions M, H, M-H and the projection operator Pi(M->H)
    purpose: Conceptual framing for knowledge transfer; used to motivate the protocol, not operationalized in the quantitative analysis.
    The paper explicitly says these are illustrative abstractions, difficult to measure in practice (Section 3.1). They do not feed the main computations or numbers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D6DHMJDW

@misc{pith2026250605579,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D6DHMJDW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05579}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in AI reasoning have driven substantial improvements across diverse tasks. A critical open question is whether these improvements also yields better knowledge transfer: the ability of models to communicate reasoning in ways humans can understand, apply, and learn from. To investigate this, we introduce Knowledge Integration and Transfer Evaluation (KITE), a conceptual and experimental framework for Human-AI knowledge transfer capabilities and conduct the first large-scale human study (N=118) explicitly designed to measure it. In our two-phase setup, humans first ideate with an AI on problem-solving strategies, then independently implement solutions, isolating model explanations' influence on human understanding. Our findings reveal that although model benchmark performance correlates with collaborative outcomes, this relationship is notably inconsistent, featuring significant outliers, indicating that knowledge transfer requires dedicated optimization. Our analysis identifies behavioral and strategic factors mediating successful knowledge transfer. We release our code, dataset, and evaluation framework to support future work on communicatively aligned models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05579 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Human-AI collaboration performance plotted against model solo performance for both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model knowledge (kM ∈ M) must be projected into a form understandable by human users (ΠM→H(kM)) in order to communicate knowledge effectively. Effective projections—via examples, analogies, or context aggregation—bridge the gap between disjoint representations. 1. Shared Knowledge (M ∩ H): This intersection contains reasoning patterns, abstractions, and strategies already understood by both human and model. It forms… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two-phase evaluation framework. (1) Collaborative Ideation: Users and an AI assistant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (24 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Analysis of human-AI problem-solving interactions. Human queries (left), model responses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Participant Demographics: Distribution of Degrees (Both pursuing and obtained) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Participant Demographics: Distribution of participants by academic year. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Participant Demographics: Distribution of AI/LLM Familiarity/Usage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Participant Demographics: Copilot Usage LeetCode Experience Percentage Cannot solve LeetCode problems 0% Can sometimes solve easy problems 12.7% Can consistently solve easy problems 11% Can sometimes solve medium problems 36.4% Can consistently solve medium problems 12…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Participant Demographics (For those who participated in coding tasks): LeetCode Experi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Participant Demographics: Competition Math Experience [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Participant Demographics: Distribution of Affiliated Institutions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Average time (in seconds) required by different models to solve math and code problems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Average User Ratings (1-5 Scale) for AI Models on Math and Code Problems. After each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Average ELO ratings for math and code problems by model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Summary of study instructions for participants, showing protocol for both coding and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Questionnaire that users answered after each problem solving session. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Example abbreviated coding and math questions of varying difficulty from the study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Distribution of conversation lengths, based on number of messages sent by the human. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Image of user interface during a math problem solving session. The user may not type in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Image of user interface during a math problem solving session. Once the user clicks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Image of user interface during a coding problem solving session. In place of a singular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Rating adjustment formulas based on performance outcomes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Interaction between human and AI model (Claude 3.7 Sonnet) on a dynamic programming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Interaction between human and AI model (GPT-4o) on finding the maximum area rectangle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Interaction between human and AI model (Gemini 2.5 Pro) on a recurrence relation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Interaction between human and AI model (Deepseek-V3) on a problem about minimizing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Interaction between human and AI model (Gemini 2.5 Pro) on a AIME problem requiring [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_27.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), December 2023

    Sayed Fayaz Ahmad, Heesup Han, Muhammad Mansoor Alam, Mohd Khairul Rehmat, Muham- mad Irshad, Marcelo Arraño-Muñoz, and Antonio Ariza-Montes. Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), December 2023. Publisher Copyright: © 2023, The Author(s)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, et al. Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Does the whole exceed its parts? the effect of ai explanations on complementary team performance

    Gagan Bansal, Tongshuang Wu, Joyce Zhou, Raymond Fok, Besmira Nushi, Ece Kamar, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Daniel Weld. Does the whole exceed its parts? the effect of ai explanations on complementary team performance. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1–16, 2021. 10

    2021

  4. [4]

    Measuring progress on scalable oversight for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.03540, 2022

    Samuel R Bowman, Jeeyoon Hyun, Ethan Perez, Edwin Chen, Craig Pettit, Scott Heiner, Kamil˙e Lukoši¯ut˙e, Amanda Askell, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, et al. Measuring progress on scalable oversight for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.03540, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I

    Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E Terry. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons.Biometrika, 39(3/4):324–345, 1952

    1952

  6. [6]

    Evaluating large language models trained on code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021

    Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde De Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Language models as science tutors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11111, 2024

    Alexis Chevalier, Jiayi Geng, Alexander Wettig, Howard Chen, Sebastian Mizera, Toni Annala, Max Jameson Aragon, Arturo Rodríguez Fanlo, Simon Frieder, Simon Machado, et al. Language models as science tutors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11111, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating llms by human preference

    Wei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Tianle Li, Dacheng Li, Banghua Zhu, Hao Zhang, Michael Jordan, Joseph E Gonzalez, et al. Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating llms by human preference. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ai-enhanced collective intelligence.Patterns, 5(11), 2024

    Hao Cui and Taha Yasseri. Ai-enhanced collective intelligence.Patterns, 5(11), 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    To what extent is chatgpt useful for language teacher lesson plan creation?arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.09974, 2024

    Alex Dornburg and Kristin Davin. To what extent is chatgpt useful for language teacher lesson plan creation?arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.09974, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Evaluat- ing human-ai collaboration: A review and methodological framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19098, 2024

    George Fragiadakis, Christos Diou, George Kousiouris, and Mara Nikolaidou. Evaluat- ing human-ai collaboration: A review and methodological framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19098, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Beyond answers: How llms can pursue strategic thinking in education.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04815, 2025

    Eleonora Grassucci, Gualtiero Grassucci, Aurelio Uncini, and Danilo Comminiello. Beyond answers: How llms can pursue strategic thinking in education.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04815, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Human-ai co-creativity: Exploring synergies across levels of creative collaboration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12527, 2024

    Jennifer Haase and Sebastian Pokutta. Human-ai co-creativity: Exploring synergies across levels of creative collaboration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12527, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Llm-as-a-tutor in efl writing education: Focusing on evaluation of student-llm interaction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05191, 2023

    Jieun Han, Haneul Yoo, Junho Myung, Minsun Kim, Hyunseung Lim, Yoonsu Kim, Tak Yeon Lee, Hwajung Hong, Juho Kim, So-Yeon Ahn, et al. Llm-as-a-tutor in efl writing education: Focusing on evaluation of student-llm interaction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05191, 2023

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Measuring massive multitask language understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300, 2020

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300, 2020

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    We can’t understand ai using our existing vocabulary.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07586, 2025

    John Hewitt, Robert Geirhos, and Been Kim. We can’t understand ai using our existing vocabulary.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07586, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Great expectations and hard times: The paradoxical experience of the engineer as project manager.International Journal of Project Management, 29:374–382, 05 2011

    Damian Hodgson, Steve Paton, and Svetlana Cicmil. Great expectations and hard times: The paradoxical experience of the engineer as project manager.International Journal of Project Management, 29:374–382, 05 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    Is human oversight to ai systems still possible?New Biotechnology, 85:59–62, 2025

    Andreas Holzinger, Kurt Zatloukal, and Heimo Müller. Is human oversight to ai systems still possible?New Biotechnology, 85:59–62, 2025. 11

    2025

  14. [22]

    Monitoring human dependence on ai systems with reliance drills.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14055, 2024

    Rosco Hunter, Richard Moulange, Jamie Bernardi, and Merlin Stein. Monitoring human dependence on ai systems with reliance drills.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14055, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Gpt-4o system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. Gpt-4o system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07974, 2024

    Naman Jain, King Han, Alex Gu, Wen-Ding Li, Fanjia Yan, Tianjun Zhang, Sida Wang, Ar- mando Solar-Lezama, Koushik Sen, and Ion Stoica. Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07974, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues?arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06770, 2023

    Carlos E Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues?arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06770, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Tailoring education with genai: a new horizon in lesson planning

    Kostas Karpouzis, Dimitris Pantazatos, Joanna Taouki, and Kalliopi Meli. Tailoring education with genai: a new horizon in lesson planning. In2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pages 1–10. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Before and beyond trust: reliance in medical ai.Journal of Medical Ethics, 48(11):852–856, 2022

    Charalampia (Xaroula) Kerasidou, Angeliki Kerasidou, Monika Buscher, and Stephen Wilkin- son. Before and beyond trust: reliance in medical ai.Journal of Medical Ethics, 48(11):852–856, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Beyond interpretability: developing a language to shape our relationships with ai, Apr 2022

    Been Kim. Beyond interpretability: developing a language to shape our relationships with ai, Apr 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    T\" ulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124, 2024

    Nathan Lambert, Jacob Morrison, Valentina Pyatkin, Shengyi Huang, Hamish Ivison, Faeze Brahman, Lester James V Miranda, Alisa Liu, Nouha Dziri, Shane Lyu, et al. T\" ulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Deepseek-v3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

    Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    One size doesn’t fit all: A personal- ized conversational tutoring agent for mathematics instruction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12633, 2025

    Ben Liu, Jihan Zhang, Fangquan Lin, Xu Jia, and Min Peng. One size doesn’t fit all: A personal- ized conversational tutoring agent for mathematics instruction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12633, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Stuart P. Lloyd. Least squares quantization in pcm.IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 28:129–136, 1982

    1982

  25. [33]

    How to teach programming in the ai era? using llms as a teachable agent for debugging

    Qianou Ma, Hua Shen, Kenneth Koedinger, and Sherry Tongshuang Wu. How to teach programming in the ai era? using llms as a teachable agent for debugging. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 265–279. Springer, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Is ai the better programming part- ner? human-human pair programming vs

    Qianou Ma, Tongshuang Wu, and Kenneth Koedinger. Is ai the better programming part- ner? human-human pair programming vs. human-ai pair programming.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05153, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Unifying ai tutor evaluation: An evaluation taxonomy for pedagogical ability assessment of llm-powered ai tutors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09416, 2024

    Kaushal Kumar Maurya, KV Srivatsa, Kseniia Petukhova, and Ekaterina Kochmar. Unifying ai tutor evaluation: An evaluation taxonomy for pedagogical ability assessment of llm-powered ai tutors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09416, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Human participants in ai research: Ethics and transparency in practice.IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 2024

    Kevin R McKee. Human participants in ai research: Ethics and transparency in practice.IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Fully au- tonomous ai agents should not be developed.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02649, 2025

    Margaret Mitchell, Avijit Ghosh, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, and Giada Pistilli. Fully au- tonomous ai agents should not be developed.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02649, 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    The realhu- maneval: Evaluating large language models’ abilities to support programmers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02806, 2024

    Hussein Mozannar, Valerie Chen, Mohammed Alsobay, Subhro Das, Sebastian Zhao, Dennis Wei, Manish Nagireddy, Prasanna Sattigeri, Ameet Talwalkar, and David Sontag. The realhu- maneval: Evaluating large language models’ abilities to support programmers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404....

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Autotutor meets large language models: A language model tutor with rich pedagogy and guardrails

    Sankalan Pal Chowdhury, Vilém Zouhar, and Mrinmaya Sachan. Autotutor meets large language models: A language model tutor with rich pedagogy and guardrails. InProceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale, pages 5–15, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R Bowman. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. InFirst Conference on Language Modeling, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Connecting feedback to choice: Understanding educator preferences in genai vs

    Shawon Sarkar, Min Sun, Alex Liu, Zewei Tian, Lief Esbenshade, Jian He, and Zachary Zhang. Connecting feedback to choice: Understanding educator preferences in genai vs. human-created lesson plans in k-12 education–a comparative analysis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05449, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bridging the human-ai knowledge gap: Concept discovery and transfer in alphazero.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16410, 2023

    Lisa Schut, Nenad Tomasev, Tom McGrath, Demis Hassabis, Ulrich Paquet, and Been Kim. Bridging the human-ai knowledge gap: Concept discovery and transfer in alphazero.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16410, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Collaborative gym: A framework for enabling and evaluating human-agent collaboration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15701, 2024

    Yijia Shao, Vinay Samuel, Yucheng Jiang, John Yang, and Diyi Yang. Collaborative gym: A framework for enabling and evaluating human-agent collaboration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15701, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Can language models solve olympiad programming?arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10952, 2024

    Quan Shi, Michael Tang, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Can language models solve olympiad programming?arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10952, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Can llms generate novel research ideas? a large-scale human study with 100+ nlp researchers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04109, 2024

    Chenglei Si, Diyi Yang, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. Can llms generate novel research ideas? a large-scale human study with 100+ nlp researchers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04109, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Bright: A realistic and challenging benchmark for reasoning-intensive retrieval.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12883, 2024

    Hongjin Su, Howard Yen, Mengzhou Xia, Weijia Shi, Niklas Muennighoff, Han-yu Wang, Haisu Liu, Quan Shi, Zachary S Siegel, Michael Tang, et al. Bright: A realistic and challenging benchmark for reasoning-intensive retrieval.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12883, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Clio: Privacy-preserving insights into real-world ai use.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13678, 2024

    Alex Tamkin, Miles McCain, Kunal Handa, Esin Durmus, Liane Lovitt, Ankur Rathi, Saffron Huang, Alfred Mountfield, Jerry Hong, Stuart Ritchie, et al. Clio: Privacy-preserving insights into real-world ai use.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13678, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Scicode: A research coding benchmark curated by scientists.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:30624–30650, 2024

    Minyang Tian, Luyu Gao, Shizhuo Zhang, Xinan Chen, Cunwei Fan, Xuefei Guo, Roland Haas, Pan Ji, Kittithat Krongchon, Yao Li, et al. Scicode: A research coding benchmark curated by scientists.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:30624–30650, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Tutor copilot: A human-ai approach for scaling real-time expertise.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03017, 2024

    Rose E Wang, Ana T Ribeiro, Carly D Robinson, Susanna Loeb, and Dora Demszky. Tutor copilot: A human-ai approach for scaling real-time expertise.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03017, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bridging the novice-expert gap via models of decision-making: A case study on remediating math mistakes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10648, 2023

    Rose E Wang, Qingyang Zhang, Carly Robinson, Susanna Loeb, and Dorottya Demszky. Bridging the novice-expert gap via models of decision-making: A case study on remediating math mistakes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10648, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Livebench: A challenging, contamination-free llm benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19314, 2024

    Colin White, Samuel Dooley, Manley Roberts, Arka Pal, Ben Feuer, Siddhartha Jain, Ravid Shwartz-Ziv, Neel Jain, Khalid Saifullah, Siddartha Naidu, et al. Livebench: A challenging, contamination-free llm benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19314, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Ai as extraherics: Fostering higher-order thinking skills in human-ai interaction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09218, 2024

    Koji Yatani, Zefan Sramek, and Chi-Lan Yang. Ai as extraherics: Fostering higher-order thinking skills in human-ai interaction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09218, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bigcodebench: Bench- marking code generation with diverse function calls and complex instructions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15877, 2024

    Terry Yue Zhuo, Minh Chien Vu, Jenny Chim, Han Hu, Wenhao Yu, Ratnadira Widyasari, Imam Nur Bani Yusuf, Haolan Zhan, Junda He, Indraneil Paul, et al. Bigcodebench: Bench- marking code generation with diverse function calls and complex instructions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.158...

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Log into CodeHT (https://codeht.vercel.app) using study email

  48. [57]

    Install EditThisCookie extension and copy Leetcode credentials

  49. [58]

    ready to solve

    For each problem: - Chat with the model to understand the problem and solution approach - Click "ready to solve" when prepared to code independently - Complete within 10 submission attempts - Submit trajectory and complete ranking survey MATH INSTRUCTIONS

  50. [59]

    Log into CodeHT using study email

  51. [60]

    Configure settings with self-expertise ratings

  52. [61]

    ready to solve

    For each problem: - Chat with the model to understand the problem - No note-taking while chatting with the model - Click "ready to solve" when prepared to work independently - Complete within 5 submission attempts - Submit trajectory and complete ranking survey IMPORTANT NOTES...

  53. [62]

    Alice and Bob are playing a game

    [Elo: 1269.9]You are given two positive integers x and y, denoting the number of coins with values 75 and 10 respectively. Alice and Bob are playing a game. Each turn, starting with Alice, the player must pick up coins with a total value 115. If the player is unable to do so, ...

  54. [63]

    You need to choose 4 indices from the array b such that i_0 < i_1 < i_2 < i_3

    [Elo: 1692.2]You are given an integer array a of size 4 and another integer array b of size at least 4. You need to choose 4 indices from the array b such that i_0 < i_1 < i_2 < i_3. Your score will be equal to the value a[0] * b[i_0] + a[1] * b[i_1] + a[2] * b[i_2] + a[3] * b...

  55. [64]

    110". Applying the operation once reduces it to 2 (since

    [Elo: 2450.6]You are given a binary string s representing a number n in its binary form. You are also given an integer k. An integer x is called k-reducible if performing the following operation at most k times reduces it to 1: Replace x with the count of set bits in its binar...

  56. [65]

    What are the coordinates of its new position?

    [Elo: 1.72]The point (-1, -2) is rotated 270 degrees counterclockwise about the point (3, 1). What are the coordinates of its new position?

  57. [66]

    Then cos(C) can be written as m√p n , where m and n are relatively prime positive integers and p is a positive integer not divisible by the square of any prime

    [Elo: 3.39]In triangle ABC medians AD and BE intersect at G and triangle AGE is equilateral. Then cos(C) can be written as m√p n , where m and n are relatively prime positive integers and p is a positive integer not divisible by the square of any prime. What is m+n+p?

  58. [67]

    The probability that she will roll the die an odd number of times is m n where m and n are relatively prime positive integers

    [Elo: 6]Misha rolls a standard, fair six-sided die until she rolls 1-2-3 in that order on three consecutive rolls. The probability that she will roll the die an odd number of times is m n where m and n are relatively prime positive integers. Findm+n. Figure 17: Example abbrevi...

  59. [68]

    Do not reveal your thoughts on the final answer to math problems

  60. [69]

    Do not generate any calculations for math problems

  61. [70]

    19 Rule Compliance Evaluator System Prompt You are an expert evaluator tasked with determining whether an AI tutor’s response follows the established tutoring guidelines

    Do not generate any code or pseudocode for coding problems. 19 Rule Compliance Evaluator System Prompt You are an expert evaluator tasked with determining whether an AI tutor’s response follows the established tutoring guidelines. You will be provided with: • A problem descrip...

  62. [71]

    No Answer Revelation:The tutor must not reveal their thoughts on what the final answer should be

  63. [72]

    No Calculations:For math problems, the tutor must not perform any computations that a calculator would do

  64. [73]

    No Code Generation:For coding problems, the tutor must not generate actual code or pseudocode

  65. [74]

    Guidance Only:The tutor should provide explanations, concepts, and approaches rather than solutions Evaluation Process:

  66. [75]

    Carefully read the problem description to understand what the correct answer would be

  67. [76]

    Review the conversation history for context

  68. [77]

    Analyze the current tutor response for rule violations

  69. [78]

    ready to solve

    Look for subtle violations such as: • Revealing intermediate calculation results • Showing code snippets or algorithmic steps in executable form • Hinting too strongly at the final answer • Performing mathematical operations for the student Output Format:Provide your evaluatio...

  70. [79]

    For each valid starting position (from 0 to n-1), compute the total energy gained

  71. [80]

    Return the maximum of these totals. Human:how to code negative infinity in python Model:[Abbreviated] # Setting Negative Infinity in Python In Python, you can represent negative infinity in several ways: Using the float Type: negative_infinity = float(’-inf’) Alternative Approaches:

  72. [81]

    Using the math module:negative_infinity = -math.inf

  73. [82]

    I understood how the algorithm would work in theory but I didn’t know how to debug my answer. The model’s explanation was clear and easy to follow along with

    Using NumPy:negative_infinity = -np.inf [User submits code with an error: TypeError: ’int’ object is not iterable] [User makes several attempts to fix the code, including changing how infinity is defined] [Final attempts result in a time limit exceeded error] User Feedback "I ...

  74. [83]

    - The x-coordinates of two opposite corners should be the same as the other pair, and similarly for y-coordinates

    **Check the conditions for a rectangle**: - A rectangle requires four distinct points that form edges parallel to the axes. - The x-coordinates of two opposite corners should be the same as the other pair, and similarly for y-coordinates

  75. [84]

    **Check for points inside the rectangle**: - Once you identify a potential rectangle, ensure that no other point lies inside or on the border (aside from the four corners)

  76. [85]

    Human:There has to be an easier way than iterating over all combinations of 4 points Model:[Abbreviated] You’re absolutely correct

    **Return -1 as a fallback**: - If no valid rectangle satisfies these conditions, return -1. Human:There has to be an easier way than iterating over all combinations of 4 points Model:[Abbreviated] You’re absolutely correct. Instead of iterating over all combinations of four po...

  77. [86]

    - If you have two diagonal points (x1, y1)and(x 2, y2), the other two corners must be(x 1, y2)and(x 2, y1)

    **A rectangle is defined by two diagonal points**: - For any rectangle with edges parallel to the axes, its opposite diagonal corners are sufficient to define it. - If you have two diagonal points (x1, y1)and(x 2, y2), the other two corners must be(x 1, y2)and(x 2, y1)

  78. [87]

    **Use a set for fast lookups**: - Store all points in a set for O(1) lookup to determine if the remaining corners exist

  79. [88]

    it gave me general intuition how to solve it but didn’t say much other than just guess and check and find a pattern

    **Check for validity**: - Verify that there are no points inside the rectangle or on its borders apart from the four corners. Human:Isn’t that runtime still pretty bad? Model:[Abbreviated] While the O(n2) approach scales better than brute-forcing all combinations of 4 points, ...

  80. [89]

    Recognize that the final array must have pairs whose difference is some integer X (<=k)

  81. [90]

    For each pair (i, n - i - 1), determine which X values can be achieved with 0, 1, or 2 changes

  82. [91]

    Human:Can I have two pointers here? Model:Yes

    Find the X that leads to the minimum total changes across all pairs. Human:Can I have two pointers here? Model:Yes. You could have one pointer at i = 0 and another at j = n-1, moving inward. At each step, you analyze how many replacements would be needed to make their differen...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.