Evaluating Answer Leakage Robustness of LLM Tutors against Adversarial Student Attacks
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
Record details
Published: 20 April 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Children & education · Transparency
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
Regulating Artificial Intimacy: From Locks and Blocks to Relational Accountability
arXiv · 20 April 2026
Persona-Based Requirements Engineering for Explainable Multi-Agent Educational Systems: A Scenario Simulator for Clinical Reasoning Training
arXiv · 19 April 2026
Enabling and Inhibitory Pathways of University Students' Willingness to Disclose AI Use: A Cognition-Affect-Conation Perspective
arXiv · 23 April 2026
RAG-KT: Cross-platform Explainable Knowledge Tracing with Multi-view Fusion Retrieval Generation
arXiv · 13 April 2026
Designing Safe and Accountable GenAI as a Learning Companion with Women Banned from Formal Education
arXiv · 8 April 2026
Teachers' Perceived Benefits and Risks of AI Across Fifty-Five Countries: An Audit of LLM Alignment and Steerability
arXiv · 8 May 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (20 April 2026), “Evaluating Answer Leakage Robustness of LLM Tutors against Adversarial Student Attacks,” evidence record 5612, https://ethics.ai/record/5612 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.