Fine-Tuning Small Reasoning Models for Quantum Field Theory
Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
arXiv:2603.00889v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable reasoning capabilities, largely enabled by supervised fine-tuning (SFT)- and reinforce...
arXiv:2604. 08477v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has substantially improved reasoning in formal domains such as mathematics and code, but extending these gains beyond STEM remains challenging.
arXiv:2603. 13191v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While large language models (LLMs) have transformed AI agents into proficient executors of computational materials science, performing a hundred simulations does not make a researcher.
The paper introduces a framework that separates physical modeling from execution in physics reasoning tasks. It uses a two‑stage post‑training approach: supervised fine‑tuning to build structured models and reinforcement learning with rubric‑based feedback to refine them. Experiments on PhysReason, PhyX, and SeePhys show that this explicit modeling improves reasoning performance by about 3% on average for small LLMs.
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...
The paper investigates whether the high costs of training chain-of-thought reasoning models can be reduced through algorithmic design. It introduces an autocurriculum approach that lets the model select which problems to focus on during training, showing that this method provably improves both supervised fine‑tuning and reinforcement learning. For supervised fine‑tuning, autocurriculum requires exponentially fewer reasoning demonstrations by targeting prompts where the model struggles, while for reinforcement learning it decouples computational cost from the quality of the reference model, making the burn‑in cost nearly independent of target accuracy.