Designing a Cross-Domain Benchmark for Large Language Models in Undergraduate Physics Education: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study

Main Article Content

Konstantinos T. Kotsis

Abstract

The rapid integration of large language models into education has created an urgent need for rigorous benchmarking designs, but a manuscript cannot report model performance as observed when no empirical response corpus has been collected. This article, therefore, presents a fully disclosed Monte Carlo simulation study that demonstrates how a future cross-domain physics benchmark could be designed, analysed, and interpreted. The simulated design comprises 150 hypothetical undergraduate physics problems distributed equally across Classical Mechanics, Electromagnetism, Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics, Waves and Optics, and Modern Physics; three difficulty levels; and balanced, well-specified and underspecified conditions. Four generic model profiles (Models A-D) are evaluated in 1,000 independent replications, producing 600 simulated problem-by-model observations per replication. Outcomes include final-answer correctness, conceptual accuracy, mathematical accuracy, explanation quality, and a four-category error taxonomy. Under the declared generating assumptions, the mean simulated correctness is 59.3%, with performance declining from 75.5% for introductory problems to 40.4% for advanced problems. The lowest simulated rate occurs for underspecified advanced tasks (25.1%), while model construction failure and conceptual misapplication dominate the distribution of generated errors. These quantities are synthetic outputs, not estimates of any commercial system’s performance. The study contributes a transparent design template, reproducible assumptions, and an analysis plan that can be replaced with observed data in a future preregistered benchmark.

Article Details

Section

Research Articles

Author Biography

Konstantinos T. Kotsis, University of Ioannina, Greece

Konstantinos T. Kotsis studied Physics at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. In 1985, he was an assistant researcher at Brooklyn University of New York. From September 1987 to September 2000, he served as Lecturer and Assistant Professor specializing in Solid State Physics and X-ray Diffraction at the University of Ioannina Physics Department. Since 2000, he has served as a Faculty Member at the Department of Primary Education at the University of Ioannina. He has been a Full Professor since 2012, specializing in the Didactics of Physics at the Department of Primary Education of the University of Ioannina in Greece. He was the Head of the Department of Primary Education and the Dean of the School of Education at the University of Ioannina. Now he is the Head of the Lab of Physics Education and Teaching at the Department of Primary Education. His research interests are Didactics of Physics, Science Education, Physics Teaching and Learning, Teacher Training, and Education Research and AI in Science Education.

How to Cite

Kotsis, K. T. (2026). Designing a Cross-Domain Benchmark for Large Language Models in Undergraduate Physics Education: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study. EIKI Journal of Effective Teaching Methods, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.59652/p5j07k92

References

Aldazharova, S., Issayeva, G., Maxutov, S., & Balta, N. (2024). Assessing AI’s problem solving in physics: Analyzing reasoning, false positives and negatives through the force concept inventory. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep538. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15592 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15592

Ansari, A. N., Ahmad, S., & Bhutta, S. M. (2024). Mapping the global evidence around the use of ChatGPT in higher education: A systematic scoping review. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 11281-11321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12223-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12223-4

Arvidsson, K. (2025). AI-generated language in introductory physics lab reports in the first year of ChatGPT. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 5, 408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-025-00742-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-025-00742-7

Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2

Dhillon, A.S. (1998), Individual differences within problem-solving strategies used in physics. Science Education, 82, 379-405. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199806)82:3<379::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199806)82:3<379::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-9

diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an Epistemology of Physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008

Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497

Hsu, L., Brewe, E., Foster, T. M., & Harper, K. A. (2004). Resource letter RPS-1: Research in problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 72(9), 1147-1156. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1763175 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1763175

Kortemeyer, G. (2023). Could an artificial intelligence agent pass an introductory physics course? Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19, 010132. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.010132 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.010132

Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., Altmann, A., Ejdys, J., Kazlauskaite, R., Paliszkiewicz, J., …Ziemba, E. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence as a new context for management theories: analysis of ChatGPT. Central European Management Journal, 31(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1108/CEMJ-02-2023-0091 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CEMJ-02-2023-0091

Kotsis, K. T. (2025a). Artificial intelligence for physics education in STEM classrooms: A narrative review within a pedagogy-technology-policy framework. Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education, 6(3), 204-2011. https://doi.org/10.37251/sjpe.v6i3.2148 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37251/sjpe.v6i3.2148

Kotsis, K. T. (2025b). Comparing ChatGPT and DeepSeek in addressing misconceptions about physics concepts. European Journal of Contemporary Education and E-Learning, 3(2), 191-206. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejceel.2025.3(2).17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59324/ejceel.2025.3(2).17

Kotsis, K. T. (2026). Artificial intelligence and conceptual understanding in physics education: Opportunities, risks, and research directions. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies, 6(1), 1316-1321. https://doi.org/10.62225/2583049X.2026.6.1.5673 DOI: https://doi.org/10.62225/2583049X.2026.6.1.5673

Krupp, L., Steinert, S., Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, M., Avila, K. E., Lukowicz, P., Kuhn, J., Küchemann, S., & Karolus, J. (2024). Unreflected acceptance: Investigating the negative consequences of ChatGPT-assisted problem solving in physics education. In HHAI 2024: Hybrid Human AI Systems for the Social Good (pp. 199-212). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA240195 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA240195

Küchemann, S., Rau, M., Neumann, K., & Kuhn, J. (2025). Editorial: ChatGPT and other generative AI tools. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1535128. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1535128 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1535128

Küchemann, S., Rau, M., Schmidt, A., & Kuhn, J. (2024). ChatGPT’s quality: Reliability and validity of concept inventory items. Frontiers in psychology, 15, 1426209. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1426209 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1426209

Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208(4450), 1335-1342. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.208.4450.1335 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.208.4450.1335

Lo, C. K. (2023). What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410

López-Simó, V., & Rezende, M. F. (2024). Challenging ChatGPT with different types of physics education questions. The Physics Teacher, 62(4), 290-294. https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0160160 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0160160

Moundridou, M., Moutis, N., Charalampopoulos, K., & Matzakos, N. (2026). Generative AI in physics education: A PRISMA-guided systematic review of empirical studies. Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 4(2), 149-164. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewAIA62027183 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewAIA62027183

Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1978). Individual differences in solving physics problems. In R. S. Siegler (Ed.), Children’s thinking: What develops? (pp. 325-348). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Singh, C., Maries, A., Heller, K., & Heller, P. (2023). Instructional strategies that foster effective problem-solving. In M. F. Taşar and P. R. L. Heron (Eds.), The international handbook of physics education research: Learning physics. AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/9780735425477_017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/9780735425477_017

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

Tschisgale, P., Maus, H., Kieser, F., Kroehs, B., Petersen, S., & Wulff, P. (2025). Evaluating GPT- and reasoning-based large language models on Physics Olympiad problems: Surpassing human performance and implications for educational assessment. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 21, 020115. https://doi.org/10.1103/6fmx-bsnl DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/6fmx-bsnl

Wang, K. D., Burkholder, E., Wieman, C., Salehi, S., & Haber, N. (2024). Examining the potential and pitfalls of ChatGPT in science and engineering problem-solving. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1330486. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1330486 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1330486

Wei, Y., Zhang, R., Zhang, J., Qi, D., & Cui, W. (2025). Research on Intelligent Grading of Physics Problems Based on Large Language Models. Education Sciences, 15(2), 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020116 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020116

West, C. G. (2023). Advances in apparent conceptual physics reasoning in GPT-4. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.17012

Xu, X., Xu, Q., Xiao, T., Chen, T., Yan, Y., Zhang, J., Diao, S., Yang, C., & Wang, Y. (2025). UGPhysics: A comprehensive benchmark for undergraduate physics reasoning with large language models. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.00334

Xu, Y., Kimlee, H., Xiao, Y., & Luo, D. (2025). Advancing AI-scientist understanding: Multi-agent LLMs with interpretable physics reasoning. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.01911

Yeadon, W., & Hardy, T. (2024). The impact of AI in physics education: A comprehensive review from GCSE to university levels. Physics Education, 59(2), 025010. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6552/ad1fa2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ad1fa2

Younis, A. (2025). Advancing Learning Outcomes in Physics Education through Artificial Intelligence Integration. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 6(5), 34-39. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2025.6.5.996 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2025.6.5.996

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2