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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25633 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.25633/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 12 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Program of Thoughts Prompting: Disentangling Computation from Reasoning for Numerical Reasoning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.12588/) (2022)
- [ProcessBench: Identifying Process Errors in Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06559/) (2024)
- [Stepwise Verification and Remediation of Student Reasoning Errors with Large Language Model Tutors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.09136/) (2024)
- [Beyond Final Answers: Evaluating Large Language Models for Math Tutoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16460/) (2025)
- [Evaluating GPT-4 at Grading Handwritten Solutions in Math Exams](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.05231/) (2024)
- [SPL: A Socratic Playground for Learning Powered by Large Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.13919/) (2024)
- [Autograding Mathematical Induction Proofs with Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10268/) (2024)
- [Mathematical Computation and Reasoning Errors by Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.09932/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.