Assessing AI in Introductory Physics Problem Solving

Current large-language-model (LLM) physics benchmarks are usually scored by answer accuracy, which cannot distinguish genuine reasoning from recall of familiar problem patterns and reveals little about where a model's reasoning breaks down. We introduce an auditable four-stage diagnostic that evaluates whether an LLM can reason inside an unfamiliar physics framework through induction, formulation, prediction, and review. The diagnostic combines locked pre-registrations, fresh sessions between stages, dual-LLM judging, and a human-audit pathway, and we apply it to three parallel physics worlds: a single-equation counterfactual world ($F=mv$), a historical framework (Aristotelian mechanics), and a four-domain counterfactual world (Decay World). Across Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, and Gemini 3.1 Pro, the three worlds yield composite PASS rates are 6/15, 6/15, and 0/15 respectively (content $\land$ structural for $F=mv$ and Aristotelian, content axis only for Decay World where the structural axis is out of scope). The most pointed empirical pattern is a qualitative-versus-quantitative asymmetry: in Decay World, models almost never predict the wrong direction of change, but frequently compute the wrong ratio by slipping back to standard-physics relations. The protocol also surfaces two methodology findings: LLM-judge reliability does not transfer across frameworks, and Stage 4 self-review is weak in every framework, with the model's own review wrongly reporting no earlier error in at least two-thirds of the trials that actually contained one. We release the full prompts, responses, verdicts, and audit records.

Generative AI offers new opportunities for individualized and adaptive learning, e.g., through large language model (LLM)-based feedback systems. While LLMs can produce factually correct feedback for relatively straightforward conceptual tasks, delivering high-quality feedback for tasks that require advanced domain expertise, such as physics problem solving, remains a substantial challenge. This study presents the design and implementation of an LLM-based feedback system for physics problem solving grounded in evidence-centered design and reports a first evaluation within the German Physics Olympiad. Participants rated the usefulness and correctness of the generated feedback for each implemented problem. The collected ratings indicate that the feedback was generally perceived as useful and highly correct. However, an in-depth analysis revealed that the feedback contained errors in 20% of cases; errors that often went unnoticed by the students. We discuss the risks associated with uncritical reliance on LLM-based feedback and outline potential directions for generating more adaptive and reliable LLM-based feedback in the future.

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.