Understanding why a spacecraft maneuvers -- rather than simply that it did -- is an increasingly important problem for space domain awareness as Earth orbits grow crowded and contested. Current analysis pipelines are built for detection: they are good at picking up that something happened, less good at reasoning about what it means. AstroMind is a physics-grounded benchmark designed to close that gap. It draws on high-fidelity astrodynamics simulations and real observational constraints, converting them into verifiable reasoning problems across three task types: intent inference, maneuver parameter estimation, and threat assessment. Each scenario includes realistic sensing noise and multi-source textual intelligence at varying reliability levels. Evaluation metrics capture both semantic correctness and quantitative consistency under physical constraints. Benchmarking a suite of open-weight models shows no single model dominates every axis: Qwen3 (32B) leads on intent inference accuracy; QwQ (32B) leads on threat assessment and achieves the lowest median relative error on parsed items; GPT-OSS (20B) produces the strongest judged reasoning quality and extracts the most scalar values for parameter estimation (136 of 241 parsed items). Training data composition and reasoning style matter as much as model size. Structured reasoning prompts help consistently across tested 8B models, with larger gains for those that can already track physical constraints. AstroMind gives the field a shared test for a problem where getting the physics right and reading the tactical situation correctly are both required -- neither is sufficient on its own.
Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable progress in natural language understanding, yet their effectiveness in specialized fields like astronomy and astrodynamics remains limited due to challenges in multi-step reasoning, symbolic manipulation, and domain-specific terminology. To address this, we present Taramandal-GPT (Constellation-GPT), a domain-adapted framework built on the Qwen3-8b backbone, enhanced with a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipeline and a fallback mechanism for improved contextual precision. We evaluate it on the Astrodynamics Problems Benchmark (APBench), a dataset of 299 questions covering foundational to advanced levels of space science. Using a dual evaluation method - numeric margin-based scoring and semantic similarity assessment - Taramandal-GPT achieves competitive performance against state-of-the-art open- and closed-source models, with notable strength in thinking-intensive tasks. These results highlight the value of specialized LLMs for domains demanding accuracy and interpretability, positioning Taramandal-GPT as a step toward reliable Artificial Intelligence (AI) assistants for astrophysics, spacecraft engineering, and space exploration.
Frontier LLMs now perform strongly across a wide range of physics evaluations, but it is hard to disentangle genuine reasoning from recall of established science. We introduce DiscoverPhysics, an interactive benchmark that asks a LLM agent to discover the laws of motion of a simulated world whose physics deliberately deviates from our own. We construct 22 worlds governed by, among others, screened and fractional-power gravity, multi-species couplings, hidden dark-matter-like particles, non-coordinate-free physics, and time-varying interactions. Each world is generated on demand by an N-body simulator, for which the agent proposes several rounds of experiments, observes raw trajectory data, and ultimately submits both a natural-language explanation of the world's physics and a Python implementation of the inferred law. Because solving a world requires the agent to design informative experiments and revise its hypotheses, the benchmark probes long-horizon reasoning over an experimental history. We evaluate submissions along two complementary axes: trajectory MSE on held-out particles and an LLM-judged explanation score following an expert-written rubric assessing conceptual understanding of each world. Across eleven frontier models, we find that the strongest agents pass only half of the worlds and consistently fail on those where latent structure must be uncovered. Open-source models lag substantially behind commercial models, both in their ability to design informative experiments and in extracting conclusions from the data. We further find that good predictive accuracy does not guarantee high explanation quality and that conceptual understanding depends on hypothesis refinement through well-chosen experiments.
Matt L. Wiemann, Lindsay M. Smith, Peter Melchior +4
Characterizing LLM reasoning remains an open challenge, as many existing benchmarks isolate specific reasoning skills, rely on external knowledge, or are costly to extend. We introduce PetriBench, a compact, fully self-contained, and scalable benchmark for evaluating LLM reasoning over dynamic state spaces using Petri nets, a mature formalism for modeling real-world concurrent and distributed systems. PetriBench organizes reasoning into four task families varying by scope and temporal horizon, with Easy, Medium, and Hard levels generated by increasing structural complexity and evaluated against exact ground truth. Across a diverse set of proprietary and open-weight models, accuracy decreases consistently with difficulty, while harder instances expose increasingly distinct task-specific capability profiles. Additional analyses show that test-time compute improves performance but interacts differently with different reasoning tasks, and that procedural generation yields smooth scaling with structural complexity. Together, these results show that PetriBench provides a unified and extensible setting for probing the strengths, limits, and scaling behavior of LLM reasoning.