Testing Frontier Large Language Models' Physics Literacy in Parallel Physical Worlds

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.

Low reported scores on leading physics benchmarks, including those featured in the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (2026), suggest that frontier language models still struggle with advanced physics, a demanding test of their scientific reasoning and quantitative problem-solving abilities. Yet this impression does not always align with domain experts' experiences using these models in their work. We revisit these reported findings by evaluating frontier models on six widely used physics benchmarks and auditing them with experts, focusing on text-only problems with verifiable final answers. For each subfield of physics, faculty and graduate researchers with relevant expertise carefully review problem statements, reference solutions, and model responses to distinguish genuine model errors from grader errors, incorrect reference solutions, and ambiguous or underspecified questions. Most audited cases initially evaluated as incorrect reflect these benchmarking issues rather than errors in the models' physics reasoning. We then ask experts to address these benchmarking issues by correcting erroneous reference solutions and repairing or excluding flawed questions. We find that GPT-5.6-Sol's measured mean@4 rises from 47.3% to 78.7% on HLE-Physics and from 61.0% to 87.2% on CMT-Benchmark, while its corrected pass@4 reaches 94.4% on the 54 retained CritPt challenges. Corrected scores are computed on the retained evaluation subsets following expert review. Scores on the audited subsets of UGPhysics, PRISM-Physics, and PHYBench also rise substantially after correction. These findings suggest that current benchmarks substantially understate frontier models' ability to solve well-posed physics problems. Near-saturation on these closed-ended tasks highlights the need for more demanding, expert-validated evaluations.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for automated assessment and feedback, understanding when LLM marking is valid is essential. We evaluate LLM-as-a-judge marking across three physics assessment formats - structured questions, written essays, and scientific plots - comparing GPT-5.2, Grok 4.1, Claude Opus 4.5, DeepSeek-V3.2, Gemini Pro 3, and committee aggregations against human markers under blind, solution-provided, false-solution, and anchored conditions. We distinguish absolute accuracy from rank-order agreement, since a marking system can match the distribution of human marks while failing to order responses by quality. Across task types, performance is sharply task-dependent. For blind university exam questions ($n=771$) and secondary and university structured questions ($n=1151$), models show robust rank-order agreement with human markers (Spearman $ρ> 0.6$), with official solutions reducing error and strengthening agreement. False solutions degrade absolute accuracy, showing that models defer to provided references, but leave rank-ordering intact. Essay marking behaves fundamentally differently. Across $n=55$ scripts ($n=275$ essays), blind AI marking is harsher and more variable than human marking and adding a mark scheme does not improve rank-order agreement. Anchored exemplars shift the AI mean close to the human mean and compress variance below the human standard deviation, but rank-order agreement remains near-zero. For code-based plot elements ($n=1400$), models achieve high rank-order agreement ($ρ> 0.84$) with near-linear calibration. Across all task types, validity tracks the structure of the assessment task - the extent to which marks can be mapped to explicit, observable grading features - and the reliability of the human benchmark, rather than raw model capability.