Evaluating GPT- and Reasoning-based Large Language Models on Physics Olympiad Problems: Surpassing Human Performance and Implications for Educational Assessment
Authors:
Paul Tschisgale,
Holger Maus,
Fabian Kieser,
Ben Kroehs,
Stefan Petersen,
Peter Wulff
Abstract:
Large language models (LLMs) are now widely accessible, reaching learners at all educational levels. This development has raised concerns that their use may circumvent essential learning processes and compromise the integrity of established assessment formats. In physics education, where problem solving plays a central role in instruction and assessment, it is therefore essential to understand the…
▽ More
Large language models (LLMs) are now widely accessible, reaching learners at all educational levels. This development has raised concerns that their use may circumvent essential learning processes and compromise the integrity of established assessment formats. In physics education, where problem solving plays a central role in instruction and assessment, it is therefore essential to understand the physics-specific problem-solving capabilities of LLMs. Such understanding is key to informing responsible and pedagogically sound approaches to integrating LLMs into instruction and assessment. This study therefore compares the problem-solving performance of a general-purpose LLM (GPT-4o, using varying prompting techniques) and a reasoning-optimized model (o1-preview) with that of participants of the German Physics Olympiad, based on a set of well-defined Olympiad problems. In addition to evaluating the correctness of the generated solutions, the study analyzes characteristic strengths and limitations of LLM-generated solutions. The findings of this study indicate that both tested LLMs (GPT-4o and o1-preview) demonstrate advanced problem-solving capabilities on Olympiad-type physics problems, on average outperforming the human participants. Prompting techniques had little effect on GPT-4o's performance, while o1-preview almost consistently outperformed both GPT-4o and the human benchmark. Based on these findings, the study discusses implications for the design of summative and formative assessment in physics education, including how to uphold assessment integrity and support students in critically engaging with LLMs.
△ Less
Submitted 1 July, 2025; v1 submitted 14 May, 2025;
originally announced May 2025.
Educational data augmentation in physics education research using ChatGPT
Authors:
Fabian Kieser,
Peter Wulff,
Jochen Kuhn,
Stefan Küchemann
Abstract:
Generative AI technologies such as large language models show novel potentials to enhance educational research. For example, generative large language models were shown to be capable to solve quantitative reasoning tasks in physics and concept tests such as the Force Concept Inventory. Given the importance of such concept inventories for physics education research, and the challenges in developing…
▽ More
Generative AI technologies such as large language models show novel potentials to enhance educational research. For example, generative large language models were shown to be capable to solve quantitative reasoning tasks in physics and concept tests such as the Force Concept Inventory. Given the importance of such concept inventories for physics education research, and the challenges in developing them such as field testing with representative populations, this study seeks to examine to what extent a generative large language model could be utilized to generate a synthetic data set for the FCI that exhibits content-related variability in responses. We use the recently introduced ChatGPT based on the GPT 4 generative large language model and investigate to what extent ChatGPT could solve the FCI accurately (RQ1) and could be prompted to solve the FCI as-if it were a student belonging to a different cohort (RQ2). Furthermore, we study, to what extent ChatGPT could be prompted to solve the FCI as-if it were a student having a different force- and mechanics-related misconception (RQ3). In alignment with other research, we found the ChatGPT could accurately solve the FCI. We furthermore found that prompting ChatGPT to respond to the inventory as-if it belonged to a different cohort yielded no variance in responses, however, responding as-if it had a certain misconception introduced much variance in responses that approximate real human responses on the FCI in some regards.
△ Less
Submitted 2 October, 2023; v1 submitted 26 July, 2023;
originally announced July 2023.
