arXiv:2604.18936v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Despite the growing application of large language models (LLMs) to theoretical physics, there has been little academic exploration of how domain-sp...
By Nathaniel S. Woodward, Zhiqi Gao, Yurii Kvasiuk, Kendrick M. Smith, Frederic Sala, Moritz M\"unchmeyer
arXiv:2609.23367v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: FORM is a domain-specific symbolic manipulation language widely used in particle physics for processing the very large algebraic expressions arising...
By Bakar Chargeishvili
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 prob...
By Kaiyue Feng, Yilun Zhao, Yixin Liu, Tianyu Yang, Chen Zhao, John Sous, Arman Cohan
AdvancedMathBench is a new benchmark suite that evaluates large language models on advanced mathematical proof generation and verification. It includes ProverBench, with 245 problems from undergraduate to doctoral qualifying‑exam levels, and VerifierBench, which tests models’ ability to judge proof validity using 888 expert‑annotated trajectories. The suite features an automatic verification pipeline trained on expert data, and results show that even state‑of‑the‑art models perform poorly, highlighting a gap between generation and verification skills.
By Lingkai Kong, Zijian Wu, Yuzhe Gu, Haiteng Zhao, Zhouqi Hua, Wenyong Huang, Shuang Sun, Zhicheng Xiong, Xiaotian Zhang, Shuya Zhao, Yan Wang, Disheng Xu, Wenwei Zhang, Kai Chen
arXiv:2607. 00276v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
By Dong Zhang
arXiv:2606. 29687v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We report a machine-verified resolution of a problem open for over a decade in quantum optimization: the Farhi, Goldstone and Gutmann (FGG) conjecture that depth-$p$ Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) on the ring of disagrees attains approximation ratio $(2p+1)/(2p+2)$ exactly.
By Uri Kol, Maor Ben-Shahar, Kfir Sulimany, Dirk Englund
arXiv:2606. 13811v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Can Large Language Models (LLMs) understand and reason about quantum operators?
By Rogerio Feris, Yunchao Liu, Pengyuan Li, Hang Hua, David Kremer
QART is a quantum‑classical hybrid architecture that augments a language model with quantum encoding, CIM‑based QUBO optimization, and quantum decoding to improve long‑horizon reasoning. The authors claim that, under certain assumptions, QART can maintain a non‑zero probability of recovering an optimal reasoning path while traditional autoregressive LLMs see their acceptance probability drop to zero as cumulative risk grows. Experiments on six benchmarks with three backbone models show that QART outperforms the baselines in 14 of 15 pairings, with relative gains up to 84.0% on SciCode.
By Lehao Lin, Yuheng Cheng, Guolong Liu, Yao Li, Xuning Tan, Xiyuan Zhou, Ruixi Zou, Shi Wang, Huan Zhao, Wenxuan Liu, Haifeng Wu, Junhua Zhao
arXiv:2610.32575v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models and agents have shown significant power in advanced physical research. In this paper, We introduce PHYRD, a living benchmark for...
By Qituan Zhang, Guo Chen, Linfeng Zhang, Wenlong Zhang
arXiv:2605.26087v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Frontier LLMs now perform strongly across a wide range of physics evaluations, but it is hard to disentangle genuine reasoning from recall of...
By Matt L. Wiemann, Lindsay M. Smith, Peter Melchior, Siddharth Mishra-Sharma, Andrew Gordon Wilson, Pavel Izmailov, Carolina Cuesta-L\'azaro
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on high-school and olympiad-style mathematics, yet their capabilities on advanced mathematics remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks, however, fall short in both scope and evaluation granularity: they provide limited disciplinary coverage and often rely on final-answer correctness or coarse judgments, leaving the validity of the reasoning process inadequately assessed.
arXiv:2606. 05818v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Between April 1 and May 15, 2026, a group of 49 mathematicians compiled a dataset of research-level mathematics questions with known answers.
By Andrei Balakin, Mikl\'os B\'ona, Marie-Charlotte Brandenburg, Clara Briand, Veronica Calvo Cortes, Shelby Cox, Jesus A. De Loera, Danai Deligeorgaki, Hannah Friedman, Tim Gehrunger, Chiara Giardino, Stephen Griffeth, Baran Hashemi, Elena Hoster, Alexander Ivanov, Nupur Jain, Aryaman Jal, Leonie Kayser, Joris Koefler, Kevin K\"uhn, Mario Kummer, Felix Lotter, Ren\'e Marczinzik, Victor S. Miller, Alejandro Morales, Greta Panova, Gianni Petrella, Nathan Pflueger, Lakshmi Ramesh, Nikolas Rieke, Carlos Rodriguez, Andrea Rosana, Flavio Salizzoni, Otto T. P. Schmidt, Sven Ulf Schmitz, Lina Maria Simbaqueba Marin, Luca Sodomaco, Christian Stump, Bernd Sturmfels, Alexander Taveira Blomenhofer, Simon Telen, Philipp Tuchel, Emil Verkama, Carl Felix Waller, Julian Weigert, Annette Werner, Nathan Williams, Claudius Zibrowius