Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Zhao, Wanjia, Ma, Qinwei, Shi, Jingzhe, Wu, Shirley, Han, Jiaqi, Xiao, Yijia, Chen, Si-Yuan, Luo, Xiao, Schmidt, Ludwig, Zou, James
Format: Preprint
Published: 2025
Subjects:
Online Access:https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.03185
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1866914124831653888
author Zhao, Wanjia
Ma, Qinwei
Shi, Jingzhe
Wu, Shirley
Han, Jiaqi
Xiao, Yijia
Chen, Si-Yuan
Luo, Xiao
Schmidt, Ludwig
Zou, James
author_facet Zhao, Wanjia
Ma, Qinwei
Shi, Jingzhe
Wu, Shirley
Han, Jiaqi
Xiao, Yijia
Chen, Si-Yuan
Luo, Xiao
Schmidt, Ludwig
Zou, James
contents Benchmarks for competition-style reasoning have advanced evaluation in mathematics and programming, yet physics remains comparatively explored. Most existing physics benchmarks evaluate only final answers, which fail to capture reasoning processes, while recent stepwise methods rely on heuristic LLM-as-judge scoring or restrictive linear assumptions, limiting reliability and diagnostic validity. We introduce PRISM-Physics, a process-level evaluation framework and benchmark for complex physics reasoning problems. Solutions are represented as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) of formulas, explicitly encoding causal dependencies among intermediate steps to enable fine-grained, interpretable, and theoretically grounded scoring. We prove the optimality of the DAG representation and the corresponding scoring policy. Combining with a fully rule-based method for symbolic formula equivalence matching that we developed, we ensure consistent validation across diverse formulations without heuristic judgments. Results show that our evaluation framework is more aligned with human experts' scoring. Experiments on state-of-the-art LLMs reveal persistent reasoning failures in physics, while step-level scoring offers both diagnostic insight and rich signals for later training. By combining structural rigor, theoretical guarantees, and symbolic validation, PRISM-Physics provides a principled foundation for advancing process-level evaluation and guiding the development of models with deeper scientific reasoning capabilities.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2510_03185
institution arXiv
publishDate 2025
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle PRISM-Physics: Causal DAG-Based Process Evaluation for Physics Reasoning
Zhao, Wanjia
Ma, Qinwei
Shi, Jingzhe
Wu, Shirley
Han, Jiaqi
Xiao, Yijia
Chen, Si-Yuan
Luo, Xiao
Schmidt, Ludwig
Zou, James
Machine Learning
Benchmarks for competition-style reasoning have advanced evaluation in mathematics and programming, yet physics remains comparatively explored. Most existing physics benchmarks evaluate only final answers, which fail to capture reasoning processes, while recent stepwise methods rely on heuristic LLM-as-judge scoring or restrictive linear assumptions, limiting reliability and diagnostic validity. We introduce PRISM-Physics, a process-level evaluation framework and benchmark for complex physics reasoning problems. Solutions are represented as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) of formulas, explicitly encoding causal dependencies among intermediate steps to enable fine-grained, interpretable, and theoretically grounded scoring. We prove the optimality of the DAG representation and the corresponding scoring policy. Combining with a fully rule-based method for symbolic formula equivalence matching that we developed, we ensure consistent validation across diverse formulations without heuristic judgments. Results show that our evaluation framework is more aligned with human experts' scoring. Experiments on state-of-the-art LLMs reveal persistent reasoning failures in physics, while step-level scoring offers both diagnostic insight and rich signals for later training. By combining structural rigor, theoretical guarantees, and symbolic validation, PRISM-Physics provides a principled foundation for advancing process-level evaluation and guiding the development of models with deeper scientific reasoning capabilities.
title PRISM-Physics: Causal DAG-Based Process Evaluation for Physics Reasoning
topic Machine Learning
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.03185