Decoupled Physical Modeling and Execution for Physics Reasoning
Authors: Ye Zhang, Xuehang Guo, Rui Pan, Pengfei Yu, Denghui Zhang, Manling Li, Qingyun Wang
Organizations: University of Pennsylvania · William & Mary · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Amazon · Stevens Institute of Technology · Northwestern University
Physics reasoning requires constructing a consistent model of the underlying physical system rather than relying solely on symbolic or formula-based manipulation. Although large language models have shown strong ability in solving math and coding problems, they still struggle with physics problems, as these problems entangle the physical modeling process with mathematical calculations. Humans approach physics by first building a representation of the system before performing calculations. Inspired by this, we introduce a unified framework that distills intermediate representations that explicitly encode the physical modeling process and adopt a two-stage post-training strategy, where supervised fine-tuning establishes structured modeling, and reinforcement learning with rubric-based feedback improves the quality of the modeling process. Experiments on multiple multimodal physics benchmarks show that our approach generally improves physical reasoning performance across different models and datasets. Across PhysReason, PhyX, and SeePhys, physical modeling outperforms GRPO by ~3% on average. showing that explicit physical modeling is an effective strategy for improving physics reasoning in small VLMs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Physics reasoning errors often arise from incorrect physical modeling. Explicit modeling separates system representation from mathematical execution.
Figure 2: Overview of our physical-modeling post-training framework. Explicit physical modeling provides both structured SFT trajectories and rubric-based process rewards for GRPO, enabling the model to separate system modeling from mathematical execution.
Method
PhysReason
PhyX
SeePhys
PhysUni mc
MMK-12 phys.
P@1
P@5
P@1
P@5
P@1
P@5
P@1
P@5
P@1
P@5
Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct
Baseline
13.3
33.6
10.9
23.5
9.1
24.7
17.1
50.9
35.0
73.4
GRPO
17.3
36.8
12.6
27.0
12.4
29.8
19.1
52.7
42.4
82.4
Physics-Modeling + GRPO
22.9
47.1
13.6
34.7
16.5
33.9
21.2
53.7
46.2
84.0
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct
Table 1: Main results on PhysReason ( Zhang et al., 2025 ) , PhyX ( Shen et al., 2025 ) , and SeePhys ( Xiang et al., 2025 ) for in-domain evaluation, and on PhysUniBench ( Wang et al., 2026 ) and the physics subset of MMK-12 ( Meng et al., 2025 ) for out-of-domain evaluation. We report Pass@1 and Pass@5 for the baseline and GRPO variants. Bold indicates the best result within each model block.
Method
PhysReason
PhyX
SeePhys
P@1
P@5
P@1
P@5
P@1
P@5
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
Baseline
25.0
47.8
17.0
35.7
14.0
28.9
SFT Cold Start
27.2
54.4
18.2
36.0
15.7
28.9
w/o Textual
22.4
43.8
15.1
29.9
14.0
25.6
Qwen3-VL-8B
Table 2: Effect of Physical Modeling SFT Cold Start
Figure 3: Pass@1 accuracy of Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct under different token budgets.
Method
Samples w/ Reflection
Ratio
Baseline
309/500
0.618
Modeling-SFT
5/500
0.010
Table 3: Frequency of reflective reasoning patterns in 500 sampled Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct generations.
Method
PR
PhyX
SP
PUB
MMK
w/o SFT
28.1
18.2
15.7
20.5
52.8
w/o Rubric
30.4
20.9
19.8
21.9
54.0
Full
32.1
21.4
19.8
23.5
56.8
Table 4: Component ablations on Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct. We report Pass@1 accuracy on PhysReason (PR), PhyX, SeePhys (SP), PhysUniBench (PUB), and MMK-12 (MMK).
Figure 4: Performance across physics subfields for Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Distribution of physics reasoning error types from a preliminary analysis using a Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct.
Modeling Trace
Correct
Accuracy
No modeling trace
72/400
18.0%
Self-generated trace
80/400
20.0%
Strong-model trace
154/400
38.5%
Appendix
Table 5: Performance of a fixed executor under different sources of physical modeling traces on the same 400 problems.
Data
Cat.
Orig.
Synth.
Total
PhysReason
Electro.
962
523
1485
Mech.
567
476
1043
Optics
353
207
560
Thermo.
239
89
328
Other
19
24
43
PhyX
Electro.
418
454
872
Appendix
Table 6: Category-level statistics of the constructed physical modeling trace dataset.
Similarity >0.90
Near-Duplicate
Dataset
Size
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
PhysReason
467
12
2.57%
6
1.28%
PhyX
412
6
1.46%
4
0.97%
SeePhys
121
5
4.13%
0
0.00%
Total
1000
23
2.30%
10
1.00%
Appendix
Table 7: Textual overlap between the training and held-out evaluation sets
Model
Reasoning Excerpt
Baseline
“By conservation of energy: (m1−m2)gh+21(m1+m2)v2=0 Solve for v2 : v2=m1+m22(m2−m1)gh Wait — this gives a negative value for v2 , which is impossible. That means we have the sign wrong. The net potential energy loss is m1gh−m2gh , which is positive, and this energy is converted to kinetic energy.”
SFT
cold start
“The system consists of two buckets connected by a lightweight, inextensible rope passing over a frictionless, massless pulley. Since the rope is inextensible, both buckets move with the same magnitude of acceleration a and reach the same final speed v . Determine Acceleration: Apply Newton’s Second Law to the system. The net force is the difference between the weights of the two buckets. Relate this net force to the total mass to solve for acceleration a . a=m1+m2(m1−m2)g ”
Appendix
Table 8: Reasoning excerpts from an Atwood-machine example.
Physics reasoning fails structurally in small language models: an error at any step propagates forward, corrupting every inference that follows. Limited domain knowledge, hallucination under multi-step derivation, and distributional sensitivity compound this failure. We propose a step-level reward framework that identifies the first reasoning error, generates targeted structured feedback, and trains the model to revise its solution via policy gradient with KL regularization, without exposing it to ground truth solutions as generation targets. Unlike annotation-dependent step-level methods, no preference data construction is required and the external verifier operates exclusively at training time. Across five physics benchmarks, our framework delivers accuracy gains of 17-20% over CoT prompting and 10-16% over the strongest baseline, reduces calculation errors from 56.9% to 23.5%, and reduces miscomprehension errors from 22.3% to 12.0% in the best observed cases. Conceptual errors reduce from 89.7% to 68.7%, yet persist as the hardest failure mode across all conditions.
We have witnessed remarkable advances in LLM reasoning capabilities with the advent of DeepSeek-R1. However, much of this progress has been fueled by the abundance of internet question-answer (QA) pairs, a major bottleneck going forward, since such data is limited in scale and concentrated mainly in domains like mathematics. In contrast, other sciences such as physics lack large-scale QA datasets to effectively train reasoning-capable models. In this work, we show that physics simulators can serve as a powerful alternative source of supervision for training LLMs for physical reasoning. We generate random scenes in physics engines, create synthetic question-answer pairs from simulated interactions, and train LLMs using reinforcement learning on this synthetic data. Our models exhibit zero-shot sim-to-real transfer to real-world physics benchmarks: for example, training solely on synthetic simulated data improves performance on IPhO (International Physics Olympiad) problems by 5-10 percentage points across model sizes. These results demonstrate that physics simulators can act as scalable data generators, enabling LLMs to acquire deep physical reasoning skills beyond the limitations of internet-scale QA data. Code available at: https://sim2reason.github.io/.
Physical reasoning over images requires integrating perception, domain knowledge, and multi-step symbolic inference, yet Vision-Language Models (VLMs) fall far short of human performance on physics benchmarks. Reinforcement learning can improve reasoning via reward signals, but it remains unclear whether these signals must come from outside the model or can be derived from the model itself. We compare external rewards, which rely on an outside verifier (rule-based format and answer-correctness checks, or an LLM-judge rubric), with an internal attention-based reward computed from the model's own attention over image regions, requiring no labels or judge. We find that external rewards drive most of the accuracy gains, while preserving more coherent reasoning when rewarded for reasoning tokens. The internal attention-based reward, provides an annotation-free grounding signal that improves spatial-relation reasoning and is complementary to external rewards: adding it to format and accuracy rewards, at no additional annotation cost, improves average accuracy on Molmo~2 while generalizing to out-of-distribution tasks. Our results suggest that internal attention rewards can supplement external supervision and lead to improved physical reasoning.