Camilo Chacón Sartori

Camilo Chacón Sartori

When an agent can articulate why something works, we typically take this as evidence of genuine understanding. This presupposes that effective action and correct explanation covary, and that coherent explanation reliably signals both. I argue that this assumption fails for contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs). I introduce what I call the Bidirectional Coherence Paradox: competence and grounding not only dissociate but invert across epistemic conditions. In low-observability domains, LLMs often act successfully while misidentifying the mechanisms that produce their success. In high-observability domains, they frequently generate explanations that accurately track observable causal structure yet fail to translate those diagnoses into effective intervention. In both cases, explanatory coherence remains intact, obscuring the underlying dissociation. Drawing on experiments in compiler optimization and hyperparameter tuning, I develop the Epistemic Triangle, a model of how priors, signals, and domain knowledge interact under varying observability. The results suggest that neither behavioral success nor explanatory accuracy alone suffices for attributing understanding. I argue that evaluating artificial epistemic agents requires a tripartite framework -- coherence, grounding, and a proper basing relation linking explanation to action. The systematic separation of knowing-that and knowing-how in LLMs thus challenges assumptions inherited from both epistemology and current AI evaluation practice.

Camilo Chacón Sartori, José H. García, Andrei Voicu Tomut et al.

In the context of algorithms for problem solving, procedural knowledge -- the know-how of algorithm design and operator composition -- remains implicit in code, lost between runs, and must be re-engineered for each new domain. Knowledge graphs (KGs) have proven effective for organizing declarative knowledge, yet current KG paradigms provide limited support for representing procedural knowledge as executable, learnable graph structures. We introduce \textit{Generative Executable Algorithm Knowledge Graphs} (GEAKG), a class of KGs whose nodes store executable operators, whose edges encode learned composition patterns, and whose traversal generates solutions. A GEAKG is \emph{generative} (topology and operators are synthesized by a Large Language Model), \emph{executable} (every node is runnable code), and \emph{transferable} (learned patterns generalize zero-shot across domains). The framework is domain-agnostic at the engine level: the same three-layer architecture and Ant Colony Optimization (ACO)-based learning engine can be instantiated across domains, parameterized by a pluggable ontology (\texttt{RoleSchema}). Two case studies -- sharing no domain-specific framework code -- provide concrete evidence for this framework hypothesis: (1)~Neural Architecture Search across 70 cross-dataset transfer pairs on two tabular benchmarks, and (2)~Combinatorial Optimization, where knowledge learned on the Traveling Salesman Problem transfers zero-shot to scheduling and assignment domains. Taken together, the results support that algorithmic expertise can be explicitly represented, learned, and transferred as executable knowledge graphs.

Camilo Chacón Sartori

When multiple LLM-based code agents independently implement parts of the same class, they must agree on shared internal representations, even when the specification leaves those choices implicit. We study this coordination problem across 51 class-generation tasks, progressively stripping specification detail from full docstrings (L0) to bare signatures (L3), and introducing opposing structural biases (lists vs. dictionaries) to stress-test integration. Three findings emerge. First, a persistent specification gap: two-agent integration accuracy drops from 58% to 25% as detail is removed, while a single-agent baseline degrades more gracefully (89% to 56%), leaving a 25--39 pp coordination gap that is consistent across two Claude models (Sonnet, Haiku) and three independent runs. Second, an AST-based conflict detector achieves 97% precision at the weakest specification level without additional LLM calls, yet a factorial recovery experiment shows that restoring the full specification alone recovers the single-agent ceiling (89%), while providing conflict reports adds no measurable benefit. Third, decomposing the gap into coordination cost (+16 pp) and information asymmetry (+11 pp) suggests that the two effects are independent and approximately additive. The gap is not merely a consequence of hidden information, but reflects the difficulty of producing compatible code without shared decisions. These results support a specification-first view of multi-agent code generation: richer specifications are both the primary coordination mechanism and the sufficient recovery instrument.