Perfect score on IPhO 2025 theory by Gemini agent

Large language model (LLM) agents are rapidly improving on long-horizon scientific and olympiad tasks. Recent systems have produced a Lean-formalized resolution of the Navier--Stokes problem and autonomous solutions to four open questions in the Erdős Conjectures database. Yet neither system releases both its underlying model and complete inference stack. More broadly, a single agent session remains brittle on difficult problems: early errors can propagate, missing domain knowledge can stall progress, and apparent success can mask a misinterpretation or weakening of the original task. We introduce HOA (Humanize Olympiads Agent), an open, flow-level framework that coordinates multiple agent sessions through three complementary feedback channels. First, an independent reviewer evaluates each candidate and provides actionable feedback. Second, a structured wiki supplies task-specific knowledge that may be missing or unreliable in model pretraining. Third, a verifier checks generated Lean proofs against trusted challenge statements. With GPT-5.6 Sol, HOA achieves perfect scores on the IMO, IPhO, and IOI 2026, near-full marks on the IChO 2026 problem set, and solves all 672 problems (100%) on PutnamBench. On the Lean-Eval leaderboard, HOA ranks first, solving 251 of 304 problems (82.6%). We further evaluate HOA with open models. Using Kimi-K3, HOA achieves full scores on the IMO, IPhO, and IOI, and a gold-level score of 97.1% on the IChO. These results closely match the closed-source GPT-5.6 Sol + /Goal baseline on the IMO and IPhO, while exceeding it on the IChO and IOI, demonstrating that systematic feedback can help bridge substantial differences in base-model capability.

Understanding how (multimodal) large language models perform on physics problems requires benchmarks that reflect the difficulty and breadth of expert-level physical reasoning. Existing physics benchmarks remain limited in the following two important ways: (1) short of high-difficulty datasets, and (2) lack of comprehensive coverage of visual forms, knowledge points, and step-by-step solution processes. As a result, model performance on current datasets may not be fully representative of their ability to solve complex physics problems. To address these issues, we present PhysElite, a large-scale bilingual multimodal benchmark for Olympiad-level physics reasoning. PhysElite contains 11,586 Olympiad-tier problems. For each problem, we provide corresponding visual diagrams, step-by-step bilingual Chinese-English solution derivations, and the final answer. We benchmark 18 open-source and closed-source MLLMs, and find that even the strongest model reaches only 33.7% answer accuracy. We additionally conduct step-level process evaluation to diagnose where models fail in the reasoning chain. Our datasets are released at https://huggingface.co/datasets/physelite/PhysElite.

Multimodal AI can read handwritten physics solutions, but high-stakes grading requires agreement with official scores and outcomes. This study evaluated GPT-5.5-based grading on 10364 scanned pages from 520 handwritten submissions by 416 unique candidates or students across three assessments: a national Physics Olympiad theory examination, the final Olympiad selection camp with theory and experiment components, and a university quantum-mechanics examination. Each submission was graded twice by AI using the official rubrics. The second round used revised page-by-page and evidence-location instructions developed after first-round disagreement analysis. During grading, AI did not see official human marks or AI--human comparisons. Total-score correlations with official marks were high (0.91--0.97). For the final Olympiad selection, AI recovered the same five-student team as official grading. The second round improved aggregate question-part agreement, especially where first-round disagreements were larger. The main difficulty remained exact partial-credit grading, especially in experimental work. Reliable AI grading therefore depends on detailed rubrics and should be used as a second reader or audit tool under examiner control.