educational content creators

Abstract: Low reported scores on leading physics benchmarks, including those featured in the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (2026), suggest that frontier language models still struggle with advanced physics, a demanding test of their scientific reasoning and quantitative problem-solving abilities. Yet this impression does not always align with domain experts' experiences using these models in their work. We revisit these reported findings by evaluating frontier models on six widely used physics benchmarks and auditing them with experts, focusing on text-only problems with verifiable final answers. For each subfield of physics, faculty and graduate researchers with relevant expertise carefully review problem statements, reference solutions, and model responses to distinguish genuine model errors from grader errors, incorrect reference solutions, and ambiguous or underspecified questions. Most audited cases initially evaluated as incorrect reflect these benchmarking issues rather than errors in the models' physics reasoning. We then ask experts to address these benchmarking issues by correcting erroneous reference solutions and repairing or excluding flawed questions. We find that GPT-5.6-Sol's measured mean@4 rises from 47.3% to 78.7% on HLE-Physics and from 61.0% to 87.2% on CMT-Benchmark, while its corrected pass@4 reaches 94.4% on the 54 retained CritPt challenges. Corrected scores are computed on the retained evaluation subsets following expert review. Scores on the audited subsets of UGPhysics, PRISM-Physics, and PHYBench also rise substantially after correction. These findings suggest that current benchmarks substantially understate frontier models' ability to solve well-posed physics problems. Near-saturation on these closed-ended tasks highlights the need for more demanding, expert-validated evaluations.

Abstract: Financial text, textbooks, and question-answer pairs are abundant, but only a small fraction is directly usable for reasoning-focused post-training. Existing QA pairs often lack explicit reasoning, sufficient context, or reliably verifiable answers, while textbooks must first be transformed into synthetic training examples. We present a data-centric pipeline that constructs complementary corpora by mining open-source reasoning traces, distilling financial instruction data, and generating knowledge-graph-guided question-answer pairs from financial educational material. After semantic deduplication, three lightweight sequence classifiers select finance-relevant examples, reject under-specified questions, and identify tasks suitable for reinforcement learning with compact rule-based verifiers. For model adaptation, we study supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, while self-distilled fine-tuning and post-training model merging are used to prevent the loss of financial capabilities already present in the starting model. We evaluate the adapted language models using FINESSE-Bench, reporting aggregate performance and changes relative to their starting checkpoints. Across the selected comparisons, ordinary SFT reduces FINESSE-Bench accuracy by 3.2-4.0 percentage points, whereas self-distilled SFT improves over the corresponding starting models by 1.0-2.8 points. Equal-weight merging recovers 3.0 points over its SFT parent and finishes 0.9 points above the original model; GRPO on hard tasks adds 0.4 points after self-distilled SFT or 3.0 points when applied directly to verifiable tasks. These results show that retention-aware adaptation can improve financial reasoning without the regressions observed after ordinary SFT.