AI Assistants Overassist

Recent methods for improving LLM mathematical reasoning, whether through MCTS-based test-time search or causal graph-guided knowledge injection, cannot identify which concepts causally contribute to a correct answer, as the observed association may be spurious, driven by confounders such as problem difficulty. We propose CIKA (Causal Intervention for Knowledge Activation), a framework that uses the LLM itself as an interventional simulator: a prompt sets the concept state to ``mastered'' and the correctness change estimates the causal effect. We formalize this quantity as an Interventional Capability Probe (ICP), which diagnoses whether the LLM can use a given concept -- distinct from merely possessing knowledge. Because the intervention exogenously sets the concept state independently of problem difficulty, ICP separates confounding that observational methods cannot. On 67 screened problems, the ICP of the top-ranked concept (+0.219) is significantly larger than that of the negative control (+0.039; paired $t$-test, $p < 10^{-6}$, Cohen's $d = 0.86$), confirming that the probe discriminates causally relevant concepts from irrelevant ones. Analysis of 601 Omni-MATH problems further shows that solved problems have 6.1$\times$ higher ATE than unsolved ones (0.338 vs. 0.055), confirming that ICP is predictive of problem-solving success. With a 7B-parameter LLM whose weights are entirely frozen, CIKA achieves 69.7% on the contamination-free Omni-MATH-Rule benchmark and 64.0% overall, compared to 60.5% for o1-mini, and 97.2% on GSM8K, 46--50% on AIME 2024--2026, and 46.2% on MathArena. The Causal Knowledge Activation component contributes 33.8% of correct answers on problems where the base model alone fails, demonstrating that the LLM already possessed but had not activated the requisite knowledge.

Large language models are increasingly proposed as educational tutors, yet stronger task-solving ability does not necessarily imply stronger learning support. Motivated by recent calls to measure the social impact of NLP systems in practice, we study whether public LLM tutoring benchmarks distinguish learning-supportive behavior from mere answer production. We propose a lightweight diagnostic based on the gap between solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented benchmark performance. Using public MathTutorBench leaderboard results, we show that these dimensions are only partially aligned: across eight publicly reported models, the correlation between solving and pedagogy composites is 0.421, and several models shift meaningfully in rank when evaluation moves from solving to pedagogy. We then analyze the public TutorBench sample and show that agency-relevant behaviors are explicitly encoded in benchmark rubrics, especially in active-learning settings that reward guiding questions, calibrated hints, and non-disclosive scaffolding. Together, these findings suggest that educational-impact evaluation should not treat task success as a sufficient proxy for learning support. We argue that public tutoring benchmarks can better support positive-impact evaluation by reporting solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented scores separately and by making disclosure-sensitive, student-agency-preserving criteria more explicit.

Effective tutoring requires distinguishing optimal, valid but suboptimal, and incorrect student solutions, a distinction central to intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) but untested for LLM-based tutors. As LLMs are increasingly explored as conversational complements to ITS, evaluating their diagnostic precision is essential. We present a benchmark of seven LLM feedback agents in propositional logic using knowledge-graph-derived ground truth across 10,836 solution--feedback pairs and three feedback conditions. Models achieved near-ceiling performance on optimal steps but systematically over-rejected valid but suboptimal reasoning and over-validated incorrect solutions, precisely where adaptive tutoring matters most. These failures persisted across models regardless of solution context, suggesting architectural rather than informational limits. Moreover, accurate diagnosis did not reliably produce pedagogically actionable feedback, revealing a gap between diagnostic judgment and instructional effectiveness. Our findings suggest that LLMs are better suited for hybrid architectures where KG-grounded models handle diagnosis while LLMs support open-ended scaffolding and dialogue.