Is Mathematical Problem-Solving Expertise in Large Language Models Associated with Assessment Performance?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25633v1
• Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:43:54 GMT
• Title: Is Mathematical Problem-Solving Expertise in Large Language Models Associated with Assessment Performance?
• Abstract summary: It remains unclear whether stronger math problem-solving ability is associated with stronger step-level assessment performance.<n>This study examines that relationship using the GSM8K and MATH subsets of PROCESSBENCH, a human-annotated benchmark for identifying the earliest erroneous step in mathematical reasoning.
• Score: 8.840705133076877
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in math education not only as problem solvers but also as assessors of learners' reasoning. However, it remains unclear whether stronger math problem-solving ability is associated with stronger step-level assessment performance. This study examines that relationship using the GSM8K and MATH subsets of PROCESSBENCH, a human-annotated benchmark for identifying the earliest erroneous step in mathematical reasoning. We evaluate two LLM-based math tutor agent settings, instantiated with GPT-4 and GPT-5, in two independent tasks on the same math problems: solving the original problem and assessing a benchmark-provided solution by predicting the earliest erroneous step. Results show a consistent within-model pattern: assessment accuracy is substantially higher on math problem items the same model solved correctly than on items it solved incorrectly, with statistically significant associations across both models and datasets. At the same time, assessment remains more difficult than direct problem solving, especially on error-present solutions. These findings suggest that math problem-solving expertise supports stronger assessment performance, but reliable step-level diagnosis also requires additional capabilities such as step tracking, monitoring, and precise error localization. The results have implications for the design and evaluation of AI-supported Adaptive Instructional Systems (AISs) for formative assessment in math education.

Related papers

• From Abstract to Contextual: What LLMs Still Cannot Do in Mathematics [79.81905350372067]
  We study gap through contextual mathematical reasoning.<n>We introduce ContextMATH, a benchmark that repurposes AIME and MATH-500 problems into two contextual settings.<n>Open-source models decline by 13 and 34 points on SG and CS, while proprietary models drop by 13 and 20.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T14:56:04Z)
• IMProofBench: Benchmarking AI on Research-Level Mathematical Proof Generation [4.991157581428135]
  IMProofBench is a private benchmark consisting of 39 peer-reviewed problems developed by expert mathematicians.<n>Each problem requires a detailed proof and is paired with subproblems that have final answers.<n>Unlike prior benchmarks, the evaluation setup simulates a realistic research environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T10:50:37Z)
• Mathematical Computation and Reasoning Errors by Large Language Models [3.0309252269809264]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in AI-driven educational instruction and assessment.<n>This study focuses on evaluating the accuracy of four LLMs solving three categories of math tasks, including arithmetic, algebra, and number theory.<n>It is observed that the reasoning-enhanced OpenAI o1 model consistently achieved higher or nearly perfect accuracy across all three math task categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-13T16:33:02Z)
• Challenging the Boundaries of Reasoning: An Olympiad-Level Math Benchmark for Large Language Models [86.45058529521258]
  OlymMATH is a novel Olympiad-level mathematical benchmark designed to rigorously test the complex reasoning capabilities of LLMs.<n>OlymMATH features 200 meticulously curated problems, each manually verified and available in parallel English and Chinese versions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T11:20:17Z)
• MathAgent: Leveraging a Mixture-of-Math-Agent Framework for Real-World Multimodal Mathematical Error Detection [53.325457460187046]
  We introduce MathAgent, a novel Mixture-of-Math-Agent framework designed specifically to address these challenges.<n>MathAgent decomposes error detection into three phases, each handled by a specialized agent.<n>We evaluate MathAgent on real-world educational data, demonstrating approximately 5% higher accuracy in error step identification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T16:25:08Z)
• Large Language Models and Mathematical Reasoning Failures [1.6114012813668932]
  This paper investigates the mathematical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) using 50 newly constructed high-school-level word problems.<n>We rigorously analyze both final answers and solution steps to identify reasoning failures.<n>We find that while newer models (e.g., o3-mini, deepseek-r1) achieve higher accuracy, all models exhibit errors in spatial reasoning, strategic planning, and arithmetic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T09:07:32Z)
• MATH-Perturb: Benchmarking LLMs' Math Reasoning Abilities against Hard Perturbations [90.07275414500154]
  We observe significant performance drops on MATH-P-Hard across various models.<n>We also raise concerns about a novel form of memorization where models blindly apply learned problem-solving skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T13:31:46Z)
• ErrorRadar: Benchmarking Complex Mathematical Reasoning of Multimodal Large Language Models Via Error Detection [60.297079601066784]
  We introduce ErrorRadar, the first benchmark designed to assess MLLMs' capabilities in error detection. ErrorRadar evaluates two sub-tasks: error step identification and error categorization. It consists of 2,500 high-quality multimodal K-12 mathematical problems, collected from real-world student interactions. Results indicate significant challenges still remain, as GPT-4o with best performance is still around 10% behind human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T14:59:09Z)
• Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Beyond Accuracy [50.09931172314218]
  We introduce ReasonEval, a new methodology for evaluating the quality of reasoning steps.<n>We show that ReasonEval consistently outperforms baseline methods in the meta-evaluation datasets.<n>We observe that ReasonEval can play a significant role in data selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T17:18:04Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.