Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This article introduces "Physics," a rigorous benchmark comprising 1,034 PhD-level physics problems designed to test foundation models on advanced domain-specific reasoning and multi-step mathematical derivation. The evaluation of 53 models reveals that while top-tier open-weight models are narrowing the gap with proprietary systems, most still fail to solve more than half of these complex tasks, particularly when interpreting figures or applying physical knowledge correctly. This work provides a critical baseline for assessing the true capability of LLMs in specialized scientific domains beyond general knowledge retrieval.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Physics: Benchmarking Foundation Models on University-Level Physics Problem Solving

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2503.21821v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We introduce Physics, a benchmark for evaluating foundation models on advanced physics problem solving. It contains 1034 annotated, open-ended problems from PhD-qualifying exams across six core physics domains. Solving these problems requires applying domain-specific knowledge to physical setups and carrying out multi-step mathematical reasoning. Each problem includes a worked solution and independently checked reference answers. An LLM-based grading protocol evaluates individual answers and complete multi-part problems, supporting numeric, symbolic, and text responses. We evaluate 53 proprietary and open-weight models. On test problems without figures, high accuracy is concentrated in a small group of thinking models, with the strongest open-weight models approaching proprietary performance. Most open-weight models still solve fewer than half of these problems. Our analysis of Qwen3.5-9B reveals failures in applying physics knowledge and interpreting figures, with misread figures affecting several subquestions.

Abstract:We introduce Physics, a benchmark for evaluating foundation models on advanced physics problem solving. It contains 1034 annotated, open-ended problems from PhD-qualifying exams across six core physics domains. Solving these problems requires applying domain-specific knowledge to physical setups and carrying out multi-step mathematical reasoning. Each problem includes a worked solution and independently checked reference answers. An LLM-based grading protocol evaluates individual answers and complete multi-part problems, supporting numeric, symbolic, and text responses. We evaluate 53 proprietary and open-weight models. On test problems without figures, high accuracy is concentrated in a small group of thinking models, with the strongest open-weight models approaching proprietary performance. Most open-weight models still solve fewer than half of these problems. Our analysis of Qwen3.5-9B reveals failures in applying physics knowledge and interpreting figures, with misread figures affecting several subquestions.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2503.21821 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2503.21821v2 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.21821 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 225 words

Related coverage