Ansari, Ali, Sun, Haoran, Liu, Andy Zeyi, Jabbour, Mark, Ding, Yongshan, Girvin, Steven, He, Yu, Ismail-Beigi, Sohrab, Kubica, Aleksander, Miller, Owen D., O'Hern, Corey, Ozolins, Vidvuds, Poland, David, Stone, A. Douglas, Bosch, Frank C. van den, Wright, Logan, Akbari, Navid, Antu, Santanu, Cai, Kangle, Calabrese-Day, Andrew, Wuttig, Mateo Cárdenes, Cheng, Meng, Chiang, Barry T., Ghorashi, Ali, Gu, Shouzhen, Huang, Haoyang, Kang, Zhibo, Kienesberger, Lukas, Liu, Hantian, Lomba, Charles, Lu, Zhongling, Ma, Wenchao, McIntosh, Rohin E., McKinney, Evan, Rojkov, Ivan, Sun, Xulei, Tokayer, Yarone Meir, Umasankar, Naveen Balaji, Varma, Mira, Wang, Leda, Wang, Qimin, Wang, Tyler, Wei, Haoyu, Yang, Jinming, Zhao, Jinchen, Zhao, Sherlock Tingrui, Zheng, Qinyuan, Zou, Jay S., Baker, Lucas, Cohan, Arman, Sous, John
Abstract
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.
Chinese Translation
在包括《人工分析智能指数》(2026)中列出的领先物理基准上,报告的低分数表明,前沿语言模型在高级物理方面仍然存在困难,这对它们的科学推理和定量问题解决能力提出了严峻的考验。然而,这一印象并不总是与领域专家在工作中使用这些模型的经验相符。我们通过对六个广泛使用的物理基准对前沿模型进行评估,并邀请专家进行审计,重新审视这些报告的发现,重点关注具有可验证最终答案的文本问题。对于每个物理子领域,具有相关专业知识的教师和研究生仔细审查问题陈述、参考解决方案和模型响应,以区分真正的模型错误与评分者错误、错误的参考解决方案以及模糊或不明确的问题。大多数最初评估为不正确的审计案例反映了这些基准测试的问题,而不是模型的物理推理错误。随后,我们请专家通过纠正错误的参考解决方案和修复或排除有缺陷的问题来解决这些基准测试问题。我们发现,GPT-5.6-Sol在HLE-Physics上的测得mean@4从47.3%上升到78.7%,在CMT-Benchmark上的测得mean@4从61.0%上升到87.2%,而其在保留的54个CritPt挑战中的corrected pass@4达到了94.4%。经过专家审查后,纠正的分数是在保留的评估子集上计算的。UGPhysics、PRISM-Physics和PHYBench的审计子集在纠正后分数也显著上升。这些发现表明,当前的基准测试显著低估了前沿模型解决良好设定的物理问题的能力。在这些封闭式任务上的近饱和状态突显了对更具挑战性、经过专家验证的评估的需求。