Compete Then Collaborate: Frontier AI Teachers Build a Verifiable Curriculum to Improve a Coding Student Beyond Imitation

Abstract: 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.
Submission history
Access Paper:

Current browse context:
References & Citations
BibTeX formatted citation


arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .
Verified source · arXiv.org
Reported by arXiv.org. Open the original for full media and formatting.
More in Research
All newsOverthinking: Amplifying Reasoning Weights to Extract Learned Secrets
arXiv:2607.08173v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Black box auditing of language models is an essential pre-deployment tool, but it may miss subtle forms of misalignment and hidden information. To better elicit hidden information during an auditing process, we introduce \emph{over…
Read at arXiv cs.AIBlind-Spots-Bench: Evaluating Blind Spots in Multimodal Models
arXiv:2607.08317v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern AI models achieve strong performance on many established benchmarks, yet they still fail on tasks that humans find almost trivial, such as manipulating a string or drawing a dog with five legs. These examples suggest that ex…
Read at arXiv cs.AIWhen LLMs Agree, Are They Right? Auditing Self-Consistency and Cross-Model Agreement as Confidence Signals
arXiv:2607.08065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al., 2023) is increasingly the default for evaluating AI systems in enterprise pipelines, often scaled to ensembles (Verga et al., 2024) or "mixture-of-experts" (Shazeer et al., 2017) panels of judges. These…
Read at arXiv cs.AICommuniWave:A Machine Learning Model for Quantifying the Degree of Temporary Informal Behavior in Urban Communities
arXiv:2607.08554v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: For urban managers and designers, improving the functional attributes of urban communities to enhance territorial resilience in the face of complexity and uncertainty is crucial. Currently, community planning often follows a top-do…
Read at arXiv cs.AI