SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2605.14040

Physics-R1: An Audited Olympiad Corpus and Released Verifiers for Visual Physics Reasoning

Abstract

Trackable improvement in multimodal physics reasoning rests on a training-and-evaluation system that is itself rarely verified: the corpora a model trains on, the reward it is optimized against, and the benchmarks and judges that score it. We audit this system end to end and find that standard construction practices systematically distort measurement: contamination slips past n-gram deduplication, translation degrades problems, saturated multiple-choice formats overstate capability, partial-credit training rewards are easier to exploit than to earn, and open-ended grading silently depends on the choice of judge. Left unverified, these distortions inflate reported progress and leak test knowledge into training. We answer with a released verifier system: a three-stage contamination audit that certifies the train/test boundary behind an audited multimodal training corpus and a held-out olympiad benchmark; a binary answer verifier that supplies the reinforcement-learning training reward; and an answer-judging harness that brackets every open-ended score between a deterministic strict layer and a large-language-model liberal layer. All per-record verdicts are released and cross-checked against an independent open-weight judge, whose substitution shifts absolute scores but preserves the sign of every base-to-trained lift. Training against the binary answer verifier confirms the certified corpus supports training: a reference recipe lifts an 8B open-source base by 18.3 points on the held-out benchmark across three seeds. The simple binary reward also beats a dense partial-credit variant on three of four open-ended benchmarks, tying the fourth. All verifiers, verdicts, and datasets are public.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Shan Yang. 2026-08-28. Physics-R1: An Audited Olympiad Corpus and Released Verifiers for Visual Physics Reasoning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14040

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

Informational Antilocality and the Locality Bias in LLMs

We consider the ability of transformer-based language models (LLMs) to learn what we call k-antilocal languages, i.e., languages that have no mutual information across any span of $k$ contiguous symbols. We construct such languages with increasing $k$, finding that LLMs trained on them achieve comparable cross-entropy loss regardless of antilocality, but converge more slowly on more antilocal languages. Our findings support the idea that non-local dependencies are more difficult to learn, but the evidence for this bias comes from learning speed rather than learning success.

cs.CL

Sleight of Word Benchmark: Can Language Models Notice If Their Own Output Was Tampered With?

The output of a Language Model can be tampered with \emph{while} the model is writing it. A simple test can thus be constructed by evaluating the model's perception of this external perturbation. In this spirit, a simple benchmark is built in which a single word is consistently substituted with another in the generation process. We call this method \emph{Sleight of Word}. Two distinct axes are measured: metrics that relate to the model's surprise, as well as an evaluation of the textual reaction for 19 different open-weight language models.

cs.CL

Do LLM Agents Mirror Socio-Cognitive Effects in Power-Asymmetric Conversations?

Power differences shape human communication through well documented socio cognitive effects, including language coordination, pronoun usage, authority bias, and harmful compliance. We examine whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar behaviors when assigned high or low status personas. Using personas from diverse professions, we simulate multi turn, power asymmetric dialogues (e.g., principal teacher, justice lawyer) and measure (i) language coordination, (ii) pronoun usage, (iii) persuasion success, and (iv) compliance with unsafe requests. Our results show that LLMs show key socio-cognitive effects of power, albeit with nuances and variability, linking simulated interactions to both desirable and unsafe behaviors.

cs.CL