Investigating LLM's Problem Solving Capability -- a Study on Statics Questions
Summary
This paper evaluates LLM performance on statics problems, finding that while text-only questions are handled well, accuracy drops with diagrams and multi-step reasoning, suggesting difficulties in applying visual information consistently.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 06/26/26, 05:13 AM
# Investigating LLM's Problem Solving Capability -- a Study on Statics Questions Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.26103](https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.26103) [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.26103) > Abstract:Large Language Models \(LLMs\) have rapidly influenced many aspects of society, particularly education, due to their demonstrated ability to complete assignments and examinations across a wide range of subjects\. Although prior studies have examined the educational impact of LLMs, much of the existing work relies on public or open problem datasets and lacks topic\-specific analysis\. In engineering education, especially within mechanical engineering, systematic investigations of LLM performance on specific problem types remain limited\. Instead of using traditional methods that directly ask textbook questions to an LLM tool, our study adopts a model distillation process to evaluate LLM capabilities in solving statics problems\. By distilling ChatGPT, we extracted 25 text\-only statics questions and further constructed two additional datasets by adding diagrams and modifying their numerical values\. Experimental results show that while LLMs perform well on text\-only statics problems, their accuracy decreases when diagrams are introduced and the problems require multi\-step reasoning\. Further analysis suggests that this performance drop is not primarily caused by limitations in image recognition, but rather by difficulties in multi\-step reasoning and in consistently applying extracted visual information across successive solution stages\. ## Submission history From: Hung\-Fu Chang \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/e2765be9/2606.26103)\] **\[v1\]**Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:17:09 UTC \(791 KB\)
Similar Articles
Scientific Logicality Enriched Methodology for LLM Reasoning: A Practice in Physics
This paper introduces a methodology to enrich scientific logicality in LLM reasoning, including assessment criteria and data sampling methods, and demonstrates its effectiveness on physics problems using multiple backbone LLMs.
How Well Do LLMs Perform on the Simplest Long-Chain Reasoning Tasks: An Empirical Study on the Equivalence Class Problem
This empirical study evaluates LLMs on the Equivalence Class Problem to assess long-chain reasoning capabilities, finding that non-reasoning models fail while reasoning models struggle with specific structural difficulties.
Thinking Like a Scientist? A Structural Study of LLM-Generated Research Methods
This study examines how LLMs suggest research methods (datasets, models, metrics) when prompted only with a research question, finding that LLMs exhibit a strong provider bias and propose a much narrower range of methods compared to actual papers, potentially narrowing researchers' methodological search space.
LinAlg-Bench: A Forensic Benchmark Revealing Structural Failure Modes in LLM Mathematical Reasoning
Introduces LinAlg-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark evaluating 10 frontier LLMs on structured linear algebra computation across matrix dimensions, revealing that LLM mathematical failure is structurally constrained and transitions from execution errors to computational abandonment at 4x4 scale.
@stevibe: Which LLMs actually love to think? Tested 7 models on 5 math problems, measured reasoning length. The think winners: bo…
Benchmarked 7 LLMs on 5 math problems; Qwen3.5 27B and 35B A3B generated the longest reasoning chains, exceeding 10k tokens per question.