Dissecting Physics Reasoning in Small Language Models: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis from an Educational Perspective

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20707v1
• Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 04:33:13 GMT
• Title: Dissecting Physics Reasoning in Small Language Models: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis from an Educational Perspective
• Authors: Nicy Scaria, Silvester John Joseph Kennedy, Diksha Seth, Deepak Subramani,
• Abstract summary: Small Language Models (SLMs) offer computational efficiency and accessibility.<n>This study investigates the high school physics reasoning capabilities of state-of-the-art SLMs.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Small Language Models (SLMs) offer computational efficiency and accessibility, making them promising for educational applications. However, their capacity for complex reasoning, particularly in domains such as physics, remains underexplored. This study investigates the high school physics reasoning capabilities of state-of-the-art SLMs (under 4 billion parameters), including instruct versions of Llama 3.2, Phi 4 Mini, Gemma 3, and Qwen series. We developed a comprehensive physics dataset from the OpenStax High School Physics textbook, annotated according to Bloom's Taxonomy, with LaTeX and plaintext mathematical notations. A novel cultural contextualization approach was applied to a subset, creating culturally adapted problems for Asian, African, and South American/Australian contexts while preserving core physics principles. Using an LLM-as-a-judge framework with Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash, we evaluated answer and reasoning chain correctness, along with calculation accuracy. The results reveal significant differences between the SLMs. Qwen 3 1.7B achieved high `answer accuracy' (85%), but `fully correct reasoning' was substantially low (38%). The format of the mathematical notation had a negligible impact on performance. SLMs exhibited varied performance across the physics topics and showed a decline in reasoning quality with increasing cognitive and knowledge complexity. In particular, the consistency of reasoning was largely maintained in diverse cultural contexts, especially by better performing models. These findings indicate that, while SLMs can often find correct answers, their underlying reasoning is frequently flawed, suggesting an overreliance on pattern recognition. For SLMs to become reliable educational tools in physics, future development must prioritize enhancing genuine understanding and the generation of sound, verifiable reasoning chains over mere answer accuracy.

Related papers

• Symbolic or Numerical? Understanding Physics Problem Solving in Reasoning LLMs [12.215295420714787]
  This study investigates the application of advanced instruction-tuned reasoning models, such as Deepseek-R1, to address a diverse spectrum of physics problems curated from the challenging SciBench benchmark.<n>Not only do they achieve state-of-the-art accuracy in answering intricate physics questions, but they also generate distinctive reasoning patterns that emphasize on symbolic derivation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-02T03:51:16Z)
• PhysUniBench: An Undergraduate-Level Physics Reasoning Benchmark for Multimodal Models [69.73115077227969]
  We present PhysUniBench, a large-scale benchmark designed to evaluate and improve the reasoning capabilities of large language models (MLLMs)<n>PhysUniBench consists of 3,304 physics questions spanning 8 major sub-disciplines of physics, each accompanied by one visual diagram.<n>The benchmark's construction involved a rigorous multi-stage process, including multiple roll-outs, expert-level evaluation, automated filtering of easily solved problems, and a nuanced difficulty grading system with five levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-21T09:55:42Z)
• PhyX: Does Your Model Have the "Wits" for Physical Reasoning? [49.083544963243206]
  Existing benchmarks fail to capture a crucial aspect of intelligence: physical reasoning.<n>We introduce PhyX: the first large-scale benchmark designed to assess models capacity for physics-grounded reasoning in visual scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T18:33:50Z)
• Challenging the Boundaries of Reasoning: An Olympiad-Level Math Benchmark for Large Language Models [86.45058529521258]
  OlymMATH is a novel Olympiad-level mathematical benchmark designed to rigorously test the complex reasoning capabilities of LLMs.<n>OlymMATH features 200 meticulously curated problems, each manually verified and available in parallel English and Chinese versions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T11:20:17Z)
• Using machine learning to measure evidence of students' sensemaking in physics courses [5.509349550209279]
  In education, problem-solving correctness is often inappropriately conflated with student learning.<n>In this work, we contribute such a measurement scheme, which quantifies the evidence of students' physical sensemaking given their written explanations for their solutions to physics problems.<n>We implement three unique language encoders with logistic regression, and provide a deployability analysis on 385 real student explanations from the 2023 Introduction to Physics course at Tufts University.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T18:49:21Z)
• Large Language Models and Mathematical Reasoning Failures [1.6114012813668932]
  This paper investigates the mathematical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) using 50 newly constructed high-school-level word problems.<n>We rigorously analyze both final answers and solution steps to identify reasoning failures.<n>We find that while newer models (e.g., o3-mini, deepseek-r1) achieve higher accuracy, all models exhibit errors in spatial reasoning, strategic planning, and arithmetic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T09:07:32Z)
• The Stochastic Parrot on LLM's Shoulder: A Summative Assessment of Physical Concept Understanding [65.28200190598082]
  We propose a summative assessment over a carefully designed physical concept understanding task, PhysiCo.<n>Our task alleviates the issue via the usage of grid-format inputs that abstractly describe physical phenomena.<n>A comprehensive study on our task demonstrates: (1) state-of-the-art LLMs, including GP-4o, lag behind humans by 40%; (2) the parrot, o1 phenomenon is present in LLMs as they fail on our grid task but can describe and recognize the same concepts well in natural language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T04:00:03Z)
• UGPhysics: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Undergraduate Physics Reasoning with Large Language Models [39.917074900737575]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in solving complex reasoning tasks.<n>The domain of physics reasoning presents unique challenges that have received significantly less attention.<n>Existing benchmarks often fall short in evaluating LLMs' abilities on the breadth and depth of undergraduate-level physics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T06:42:02Z)
• Physics Reasoner: Knowledge-Augmented Reasoning for Solving Physics Problems with Large Language Models [41.88825441287559]
  Existing large language models (LLMs) frequently fail due to a lack of knowledge or incorrect knowledge application.<n>We propose Physics Reasoner, a knowledge-augmented framework to solve physics problems with LLMs.<n>Given a physics problem, Physics Reasoner solves it through three stages: problem analysis, formula retrieval, and guided reasoning.<n> Empirically, Physics Reasoner mitigates the issues of insufficient knowledge and incorrect application, achieving state-of-the-art performance on SciBench with an average accuracy improvement of 5.8%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T12:33:50Z)
• GSM-Plus: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating the Robustness of LLMs as Mathematical Problem Solvers [68.77382332826167]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance across various mathematical reasoning benchmarks. One essential and frequently occurring evidence is that when the math questions are slightly changed, LLMs can behave incorrectly. This motivates us to evaluate the robustness of LLMs' math reasoning capability by testing a wide range of question variations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T15:26:14Z)
• Learn to Explain: Multimodal Reasoning via Thought Chains for Science Question Answering [124.16250115608604]
  We present Science Question Answering (SQA), a new benchmark that consists of 21k multimodal multiple choice questions with a diverse set of science topics and annotations of their answers with corresponding lectures and explanations. We show that SQA improves the question answering performance by 1.20% in few-shot GPT-3 and 3.99% in fine-tuned UnifiedQA. Our analysis further shows that language models, similar to humans, benefit from explanations to learn from fewer data and achieve the same performance with just 40% of the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-20T07:04:24Z)
• The Unreliability of Explanations in Few-Shot In-Context Learning [50.77996380021221]
  We focus on two NLP tasks that involve reasoning over text, namely question answering and natural language inference. We show that explanations judged as good by humans--those that are logically consistent with the input--usually indicate more accurate predictions. We present a framework for calibrating model predictions based on the reliability of the explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-06T17:57:58Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.