Fighting Fire with Fire: On the Feasibility of Protecting Exercises Against AI Cheating

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in education, yet their default helpfulness often conflicts with pedagogical principles. Prior work evaluates pedagogical quality via answer leakage-the disclosure of complete solutions instead of scaffolding-but typically assumes well-intentioned learners, leaving tutor robustness under student misuse largely unexplored. In this paper, we study scenarios where students behave adversarially and aim to obtain the correct answer from the tutor. We evaluate a broad set of LLM-based tutor models, including different model families, pedagogically aligned models, and a multi-agent design, under a range of adversarial student attacks. We adapt six groups of adversarial and persuasive techniques to the educational setting and use them to probe how likely a tutor is to reveal the final answer. We evaluate answer leakage robustness using different types of in-context adversarial student agents, finding that they often fail to carry out effective attacks. We therefore introduce an adversarial student agent that we fine-tune to jailbreak LLM-based tutors, which we propose as the core of a standardized benchmark for evaluating tutor robustness. Finally, we present simple but effective defense strategies that reduce answer leakage and strengthen the robustness of LLM-based tutors in adversarial scenarios.

Detecting AI-generated images is only half the task: a deployed detector must also justify its verdict, yet existing detectors inherit three failure modes from their training data: real and fake images collected from different sources invite provenance shortcuts, supervised explanation corpora teach templated rationales, and a static forgery corpus leaves the decision boundary standing still while generators keep moving. We introduce \methodname{}, an adversarial reinforcement learning framework that pits two heterogeneous models against each other. A diffusion image editor learns to edit real photographs into fake counterparts of those same photographs that fool the current detector, while a reasoning MLLM learns to expose them with a verdict grounded in free-form reasoning. Both rewards are shortcut-proof by design: the attacker is credited only when its edit is faithfully executed, and the defender only when its verdict is correct. As the two models alternate, each round's attacker regenerates a harder training pool aimed at the current detector's blind spots, so the detector must generalize rather than memorize any fixed artifact distribution. Although the explanation is never rewarded, its quality rises round over round as a side effect of accuracy-only training. A detector trained within this loop improves monotonically across rounds on each of three external benchmarks.

Large language models increasingly serve as teachers generating training data for smaller students. Prior multi-teacher knowledge distillation methods merge outputs without determining which frontier model teaches best, often relying on an LLM judge biased toward its own outputs. We introduce a compete-then-collaborate framework where four frontier AI teachers (Claude, Codex-GPT, Grok, Gemini) are ranked head-to-head by an execution-based judge (unit tests and stdin-stdout checks) with fairness controls, and then collaborate to build a verifiable curriculum for a student (Qwen2.5-Coder). We report three findings. (1) Under execution verification, all teachers solve standard problems near-perfectly after self-correction (99-100%) due to a saturation effect, but harder competition problems separate them (Gemini 77% > Claude 69% = Codex 69% > Grok 50%); however, the robust student-side results do not depend on teacher ranking. (2) Imitation (SFT) on verified solutions does not improve, and can degrade, an already-competent student at 7B and 32B (e.g., from 76.7% to 72.7% on MBPP-test, and 5.9% to 2.9% on competition problems). (3) Using the same collaborative curriculum as a reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) environment improves the student (from 5.9% to 8.8% peak on competition problems, a +49% relative gain), reversing SFT's direction. The value of AI-teacher collaboration lies not in pooling answers to imitate, but in jointly constructing a verifiable environment where the student learns by doing. We release a reproducible on-prem pipeline (NVIDIA GB10) with framework patches for running GRPO on a bleeding-edge stack.