- Open Access
Multilingual performance of a multimodal artificial intelligence system on multisubject physics concept inventories
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020101 – Published 8 July, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/98hg-rkrf
Abstract
We investigate the multilingual and multimodal performance of a large language model-based artificial intelligence (AI) system, GPT-4o, using a diverse set of physics concept inventories spanning multiple languages and subject categories. The inventories, sourced from the PhysPort website, cover classical physics topics such as mechanics, electromagnetism, optics, and thermodynamics, as well as relativity, quantum mechanics, astronomy, mathematics, and laboratory skills. Unlike previous text-only studies, we uploaded the inventories as images to reflect what a student would see on paper, thereby assessing the system’s multimodal functionality. Our results indicate variation in performance across subjects, with laboratory skills standing out as the weakest. We also observe differences across languages, with English and European languages showing the strongest performance. Notably, the relative difficulty of an inventory item is largely independent of the language of the test. When comparing AI results to existing literature on student performance, we find that the AI system outperforms average postinstruction undergraduate students in all subject categories except laboratory skills. Furthermore, the AI performs worse on items requiring visual interpretation of images than on those that are purely text-based. While our exploratory findings show GPT-4o’s potential usefulness in physics education, they highlight the critical need for instructors to foster students’ ability to critically evaluate AI outputs, adapt curricula thoughtfully in response to AI advancements, and address equity concerns associated with AI integration.
Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)
Article Text
References (159)
- A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, Attention is all you need, in NIPS’17: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, 2017), Vol. 30.
- T. H. Kung, M. Cheatham, A. Medinilla, ChatGPT, C. Sillos, L. De Leon, C. Elepano, M. Madriaga, R. Aggabao, and G. Diaz-Candido et al., Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models, MedRxiv (2022), 10.1101/2022.12.19.22283643.
- Samantha Murphy Kelly, ChatGPT passes exams from law and business schools, https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/26/tech/chatgpt-passes-exams/index.html [accessed January 2023].
- OpenAI, ChatGPT, https://chat.openai.com/ [accessed April 2024].
- A. M. Turing, Computing machinery and intelligence, Mind 49, 433 (1950).
- C. R. Jones and B. K. Bergen, People cannot distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing Test, arXiv:2405.08007.
- J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman S. Anadkat et al., GPT-4 technical report, arXiv:2303.08774.
- OpenAI, ChatGPT, https://openai.com/research/gpt-4 [accessed April 2024].
- G. Kortemeyer, Could an artificial-intelligence agent pass an introductory physics course?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010132 (2023).
- G. Polverini and B. Gregorcic, How understanding large language models can inform the use of ChatGPT in physics education, Eur. J. Phys. 45, 025701 (2024).
- G. Kortemeyer and W. Bauer, Cheat sites and artificial intelligence usage in online introductory physics courses: What is the extent and what effect does it have on assessments?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010145 (2024).
- W. Yeadon and T. Hardy, The impact of AI in physics education: A comprehensive review from GCSE to university levels, Phys. Educ. 59, 025010 (2024).
- K. A. Pimbblet and L. J. Morrell, Can ChatGPT pass a physics degree? Making a case for reformation of assessment of undergraduate degrees, Eur. J. Phys. 46, 015702 (2024).
- A. Sperling and J. Lincoln, Artificial intelligence and high school physics, Phys. Teach. 62, 314 (2024).
- S. Küchemann, M. Rau, A. Schmidt, and J. Kuhn, ChatGPT’s quality: Reliability and validity of concept inventory items, Front. Psychol. 15, 1426209 (2024).
- P. Bitzenbauer, ChatGPT in physics education: A pilot study on easy-to-implement activities, Contemp. Educ. Technol. 15, ep430 (2023).
- S. Küchemann, S. Steinert, N. Revenga, M. Schweinberger, Y. Dinc, K. E. Avila, and J. Kuhn, Can ChatGPT support prospective teachers in physics task development?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020128 (2023).
- G. Kortemeyer, Using artificial-intelligence tools to make latex content accessible to blind readers, TUGboat 44, 390 (2023).
- T. Wan and Z. Chen, Exploring generative AI assisted feedback writing for students’ written responses to a physics conceptual question with prompt engineering and few-shot learning, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010152 (2024).
- Z. Chen and T. Wan, Grading explanations of problem-solving process and generating feedback using large language models at human-level accuracy, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010126 (2025).
- R. K. Fussell, M. Flynn, A. Damle, M. F. Fox, and N. Holmes, Comparing large language models for supervised analysis of students’ lab notes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010128 (2025).
- B. Gregorcic, G. Polverini, and A. Sarlah, ChatGPT as a tool for honing teachers’ socratic dialogue skills, Phys. Educ. 59, 045005 (2024).
- J. Crawford, M. Cowling, and K.-A. Allen, Leadership is needed for ethical ChatGPT: Character, assessment, and learning using artificial intelligence (AI), J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract. 20, 045005 (2023).
- M. A. R. Vasconcelos and R. P. Dos Santos, Enhancing STEM learning with ChatGPT and Bing chat as objects to think with: A case study, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 19, em2296 (2023).
- M. N. Dahlkemper, S. Z. Lahme, and P. Klein, How do physics students evaluate artificial intelligence responses on comprehension questions? A study on the perceived scientific accuracy and linguistic quality of ChatGPT, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010142 (2023).
- L. Ding, T. Li, S. Jiang, and A. Gapud, Students’ perceptions of using ChatGPT in a physics class as a virtual tutor, Int. J. Educ. Technol. Higher Educ. 20, 63 (2023).
- C. G. West, AI and the FCI: Can ChatGPT project an understanding of introductory physics?, arXiv:2303.01067.
- S. Wheeler and R. E. Scherr, ChatGPT reflects student misconceptions in physics, in Presented at PER Conference 2023, Sacramento, CA, 10.1119/perc.2023.pr.Wheeler.
- N. Cho, An investigation of using Spark generative AI in solving physics concept inventories in English and Chinese: Performance and issues, Discover Artif. Intell. 4, 1 (2024).
- S. Aldazharova, G. Issayeva, S. Maxutov, and N. Balta, Assessing AI’s problem solving in physics: Analyzing reasoning, false positives and negatives through the force concept inventory, Contemp. Educ. Technol. 16, ep538 (2024).
- G. Polverini and B. Gregorcic, Evaluating vision-capable chatbots in interpreting kinematics graphs: A comparative study of free and subscription-based models, Front. Educ. 9, 1452414 (2024).
- OpenAI, Hello GPT-4o, https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/ [accessed June 2024].
- D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
- R. J. Beichner, Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs, Am. J. Phys. 62, 750 (1994).
- L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 (2006).
- G. Polverini and B. Gregorcic, Performance of ChatGPT on the test of understanding graphs in kinematics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010109 (2024).
- G. Polverini, J. Melin, E. Önerud, and B. Gregorcic, Performance of ChatGPT on tasks involving physics visual representations: The case of the brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010154 (2025).
- J. I. Smith and K. Tanner, The problem of revealing how students think: Concept inventories and beyond, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 9, 1 (2010).
- D. Sands, M. Parker, H. Hedgeland, S. Jordan, and R. Galloway, Using concept inventories to measure understanding, Higher Educ. Pedagog. 3, 173 (2018).
- C. Henderson, Common concerns about the force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 40, 542 (2002).
- OpenAI, Introducing GPT-o1, https://openai.com/o1/ [accessed January 2025].
- T. Geisler, Quality metrics for automated evaluation of exercises within student-LLM dialogues, M.Sc. thesis, ETH Zurich, 2025 (unpublished).
- B. Gregorcic and A.-M. Pendrill, ChatGPT and the frustrated Socrates, Phys. Educ. 58, 035021 (2023).
- A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Best practices for administering concept inventories, Phys. Teach. 55, 530 (2017).
- R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
- J. T. Laverty and M. D. Caballero, Analysis of the most common concept inventories in physics: What are we assessing?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010123 (2018).
- S. M. Stoen, M. A. McDaniel, R. F. Frey, K. M. Hynes, and M. J. Cahill, Force concept inventory: More than just conceptual understanding, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010105 (2020).
- D. T. Brookes and E. Etkina, Using conceptual metaphor and functional grammar to explore how language used in physics affects student learning, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010105 (2007).
- E. Euler, E. Rådahl, and B. Gregorcic, Embodiment in physics learning: A social-semiotic look, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010134 (2019).
- D. T. Brookes. The role of language in learning physics, Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, 2006.
- P. Wulff, Physics language and language use in physics-what do we know and how AI might enhance language-related research and instruction, Eur. J. Phys. 45, 023001 (2024).
- OpenAI, GPT-4, https://openai.com/index/gpt-4-research/ [accessed December 2024].
- G. Nicholas and A. Bhatia, Lost in translation: Large language models in non-English content analysis, arXiv:2306.07377.
- DeepSeek, https://www.deepseek.com/ [accessed December 2024].
- Alibaba Cloud, Qwen, https://qwen-ai.com/ [accessed December 2024].
- Swiss AI initiative, Leveraging the world’s most AI-capable supercomputer, https://www.swiss-ai.org/ [accessed January 2025].
- Cohere for AI, The AI language gap, https://cohere.com/research/papers/the-ai-language-gap.pdf [accessed December 2024].
- S. Feng, W. Shi, Y. Wang, W. Ding, O. Ahia, S. S. Li, V. Balachandran, S. Sitaram, and Y. Tsvetkov, Teaching LLMs to abstain across languages via multilingual feedback, in Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (2024), pp. 4125–4150, 10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.239.
- K. T. Kotsis, ChatGPT as teacher assistant for physics teaching, EIKI J. Eff. Teach. Methods 2 (2024).
- P. Tschisgale, P. Wulff, and M. Kubsch, Integrating artificial intelligence-based methods into qualitative research in physics education research: A case for computational grounded theory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020123 (2023).
- P. Tschisgale, P. Wulff, and M. Kubsch, Erratum: Integrating artificial intelligence-based methods into qualitative research in physics education research: A case for computational grounded theory [Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020123 (2023)], Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 019901 (2025).
- T. O. B. Odden, H. Tyseng, J. T. Mjaaland, M. F. Kreutzer, and A. Malthe-Sørenssen, Using text embeddings for deductive qualitative research at scale in physics education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020151 (2024).
- A. Bakhtin, L. van der Maaten, J. Johnson, L. Gustafson, and R. Girshick, PHYRE: A new benchmark for physical reasoning, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Curran Associates, Inc., Vancouver, 2019), Vol. 32.
- C. Xue, V. Pinto, C. Gamage, E. Nikonova, P. Zhang, and J. Renz, Phy-Q: A benchmark for physical reasoning, arXiv:2108.13696.
- A. Melnik, R. Schiewer, M. Lange, A. Muresanu, M. Saeidi, A. Garg, and H. Ritter, Benchmarks for physical reasoning AI, arXiv:2312.10728.
- PhysBench: Physical reasoning benchmark, https://physbench.com/ [accessed: May 7, 2025].
- G. Kortemeyer and J. Nöhl, Assessing confidence in AI-assisted grading of physics exams through psychometrics: An exploratory study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010136 (2025).
- R. Mok, F. Akhtar, L. Clare, C. Li, J. Ida, L. Ross, and M. Campanelli, Using large language models for grading in education: An applied test for physics, Phys. Educ. 60, 035006 (2025).
- S. Guo, E. Latif, Y. Zhou, X. Huang, and X. Zhai, Using generative AI and multi-agents to provide automatic feedback, arXiv:2411.07407.
- L. Krupp, J. Bley, I. Gobbi, A. Geng, S. Müller, S. Suh, A. Moghiseh, A. C. Medina, V. Bartsch, and A. Widera et al., LLM-generated tips rival expert-created tips in helping students answer quantum-computing questions, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 12, 33 (2025).
- J. R. Aguilar-Mejía, S. Tejeda, C. V. Ramirez-Lopez, and C. L. Garay-Rondero, Design and use of a chatbot for learning selected topics of physics, in Technology-Enabled Innovations in Education, Transactions on Computer Systems and Networks (Springer, Singapore, 2022), p. 175, 10.1007/978-981-19-3383-7.
- V. R. Lee, D. Pope, S. Miles, and R. C. Zarate, Cheating in the age of generative AI: High school survey study of cheating behaviors before and after the release of ChatGPT, Comput. Educ. 7, 100253 (2024).
- J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).
- D. E. Meltzer and V. K. Otero, A brief history of physics education in the United States, Am. J. Phys. 83, 447 (2015).
- S. Bulathwela, M. Pérez-Ortiz, C. Holloway, M. Cukurova, and J. Shawe-Taylor, Artificial intelligence alone will not democratise education: On educational inequality, techno-solutionism and inclusive tools, Sustainability 16, 781 (2024).
- American Association of Physics Teachers. PhysPort, https://www.physport.org (2017) [retrieved November 2024].
- S. B. McKagan, L. E. Strubbe, L. J. Barbato, B. A. Mason, A. M. Madsen, and E. C. Sayre, PhysPort use and growth: Supporting physics teaching with research-based resources since 2011, Phys. Teach. 58, 465 (2020).
- J. Von Korff, B. Archibeque, K. A. Gomez, T. Heckendorf, S. B. McKagan, E. C. Sayre, E. W. Schenk, C. Shepherd, and L. Sorell, Secondary analysis of teaching methods in introductory physics: A 50 k-student study, Am. J. Phys. 84, 969 (2016).
- OpenAI, How ChatGPT and our foundation models are developed, https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7842364-how-chatgpt-and-our-foundation-models-are-developed [accessed March 2025].
- B. Hufnagel, Development of the astronomy diagnostic test, Astron. Educ. Rev. 1, 47 (2002).
- E. Brogt, D. Sabers, E. E. Prather, G. L. Deming, B. Hufnagel, and T. F. Slater, Analysis of the astronomy diagnostic test, Astron. Educ. Rev. 6, 25 (2007).
- N. O. Koca, N. alhuda Al Saqri, H. Al Hamrashdi, and N. Al Kindi, Evaluating the students’ learning on the electricity and magnetism using a conceptual survey BEMA, Phys. Educ. 60, 015022 (2024).
- S. J. Pollock, Comparing student learning with multiple research-based conceptual surveys: CSEM and BEMA, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 171 (2008).
- J. Epstein, The calculus concept inventory, in National STEM Assessment Conference, Washington, DC (Academia, San Francisco, CA, 2006), p. 60.
- W. Maciejewski, Flipping the calculus classroom: An evaluative study, Teach. Math. Appl. 35, 187 (2016).
- J. Day and D. Bonn, Development of the concise data processing assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010114 (2011).
- D. P. Maloney, T. L. O’Kuma, C. J. Hieggelke, and A. Van Heuvelen, Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 69, S12 (2001).
- R. Tapping, G. Lepage, and N. Holmes, Visualizing patterns in CSEM responses to assess student conceptual understanding, in Presented at PER Conference 2019, Washington, DC, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Tapping.
- A. E. Lawson, The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 15, 11 (1978).
- J. C. Moore and L. J. Rubbo, Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010106 (2012).
- P. V. Engelhardt and R. J. Beichner, Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits, Am. J. Phys. 72, 98 (2004).
- D. Sangam and B. K. Jesiek, Conceptual understanding of resistive electric circuits among first-year engineering students, in Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC, 2012), pp. 25–339.
- R. Yeend, M. Loverude, and B. Gonzales, Student understanding of density: A cross-age investigation, in Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Conference, Rochester, NY (AIP, New York, 2001).
- T. Zenger and P. Bitzenbauer, Exploring German secondary school students’ conceptual knowledge of density, Sci. Educ. Int. 33, 86 (2022).
- L. Ding, R. Chabay, and B. Sherwood, How do students in an innovative principle-based mechanics course understand energy concepts?, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 50, 722 (2013).
- D. R. Sokoloff, Teaching electric circuit concepts using microcomputer-based current/voltage probes, in Microcomputer–Based Labs: Educational Research and Standards (Springer, New York, 1996), pp. 129–146.
- G. Kortemeyer, D. Anderson, A. M. Desrochers, A. Hackbardt, K. Hoekstra, A. Holt, A. Iftekhar, T. Kabaker, N. Keller, and Z. Korzecke et al., Using a computer game to teach circuit concepts, Eur. J. Phys. 40, 055703 (2019).
- M. W. McColgan, R. A. Finn, D. L. Broder, and G. E. Hassel, Assessing students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020121 (2017).
- C. Singh and D. Rosengrant, Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts, Am. J. Phys. 71, 607 (2003).
- M. Sahin, The impact of problem-based learning on engineering students’ beliefs about physics and conceptual understanding of energy and momentum, Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 35, 519 (2010).
- A. J. Mason, Learning goals and perceived irrelevance to major within life science majors in introductory physics, 10.1119/perc.2019.pr.Mason (2020).
- G. Kortemeyer, Gender differences in the use of an online homework system in an introductory physics course, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010107 (2009).
- J. Han, L. Bao, L. Chen, T. Cai, Y. Pi, S. Zhou, Y. Tu, and K. Koenig, Dividing the force concept inventory into two equivalent half-length tests, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010112 (2015).
- R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
- K. Cummings, J. Marx, R. Thornton, and D. Kuhl, Evaluating innovation in studio physics, Am. J. Phys. 67, S38 (1999).
- S. T. Kalinowski and S. Willoughby, Development and validation of a scientific (formal) reasoning test for college students, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 56, 1269 (2019).
- D. Kaltakci-Gurel, A. Eryilmaz, and L. C. McDermott, Development and application of a four-tier test to assess pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions about geometrical optics, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 35, 238 (2017).
- R. Rosenblatt and A. F. Heckler, Systematic study of student understanding of the relationships between the directions of force, velocity, and acceleration in one dimension, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020112 (2011).
- J. M. Keller, Part I. Development of a concept inventory addressing students’ beliefs and reasoning difficulties regarding the greenhouse effect, part II. Distribution of chlorine measured by the Mars Odyssey Gamma Ray Spectrometer, Doctoral thesis, The University of Arizona, 2006.
- C. Tanahoung, M. D. Sharma, I. D. Johnston, R. Chitaree, and C. Soankwan, Surveying Sydney introductory physics students’ understandings of heat and temperature, in Proceedings of the Australian Institute of Physics 17th National Congress, Brisbane (Australian Institute of Physics, Clayton, 2006), Paper No. WC0233.
- I. Halloun, Evaluation of the impact of the new physics curriculum on the conceptual profiles of secondary students (2007), pp. 1–25, https://www.halloun.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LU-Summative-Report-10-07.pdf.
- K. Ndihokubwayo, J. Uwamahoro, I. Ndayambaje, and M. Ralph, Light phenomena conceptual assessment: An inventory tool for teachers, Phys. Educ. 55, 035009 (2020).
- R. S. Lindell and J. P. Olsen, Developing the lunar phases concept inventory, in Proceedings of the 2002 Physics Education Research Conference (PERC Publishing, New York, 2002).
- E. M. Bardar, E. E. Prather, K. Brecher, and T. F. Slater, Development and validation of the light and spectroscopy concept inventory, Astron. Educ. Rev. 5, 103 (2007).
- C. S. Wallace, T. G. Chambers, and E. E. Prather, Item response theory evaluation of the light and spectroscopy concept inventory national data set, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010149 (2018).
- D. Hestenes and M. Wells, A mechanics baseline test, Phys. Teach. 30, 159 (1992).
- C. P. Millán and S. Otranto, Thirty-six years of the forced concept inventory and the mechanics baseline test: Is Aristotle still playing hide and seek in our classrooms?, Latin-Am. J. Phys. Educ. 15, 2309 (2021), http://www.lajpe.org/jun21/15_2_09.pdf.
- V. Antwi, R. Hanson, A. Sam, E. Savelsbergh, and H. Eijkelhof, The impact of interactive-engagement (IE) teaching on students understanding of concepts in mechanics: The use of force concept inventory (FCI) and mechanics baseline test (MBT), Int. J. Educ. Plann. Adm. 1, 81 (2011), https://www.ripublication.com/ijepa/ijepav1n1_9.pdf.
- C. Kádár and P. Tasnádi, The knowledge of Hungarian students in the light of the mechanics baseline test, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1286, 012026 (2019).
- J. Li and C. Singh, Developing and validating a conceptual survey to assess introductory physics students’ understanding of magnetism, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 025702 (2016).
- D. L. Deardorff, Introductory physics students’ treatment of measurement uncertainty, Doctoral thesis, North Carolina State University, 2001.
- A. Tongchai, M. D. Sharma, I. D. Johnston, K. Arayathanitkul, and C. Soankwan, Developing, evaluating and demonstrating the use of a conceptual survey in mechanical waves, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 31, 2437 (2009).
- P. H. Santoso, E. Istiyono, and H. Haryanto, Principal component analysis and exploratory factor analysis of the mechanical waves conceptual survey, JP3I 11, 209 (2022).
- K. E. Williamson, S. D. Willoughby, and E. E. Prather, Development of the Newtonian gravity concept inventory, Astron. Educ. Rev. 12, 1 (2013).
- P. V. Engelhardt, S. Robinson, E. P. Price, P. S. Smith, and F. Goldberg, Developing a conceptual assessment for a modular curriculum, in Presented at PER Conference 2018, Washington, DC, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Engelhardt.
- S. White Brahmia, A. Olsho, T. I. Smith, A. Boudreaux, P. Eaton, and C. Zimmerman, Physics inventory of quantitative literacy: A tool for assessing mathematical reasoning in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020129 (2021).
- H. R. Sadaghiani and S. J. Pollock, Quantum mechanics concept assessment: Development and validation study, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010110 (2015).
- S. McKagan, K. Perkins, and C. Wieman, Design and validation of the quantum mechanics conceptual survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020121 (2010).
- E. Marshman and C. Singh, Validation and administration of a conceptual survey on the formalism and postulates of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020128 (2019).
- E. M. Marshman. Improving the quantum mechanics content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge of physics graduate students, Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 2015.
- G. Zhu and C. Singh, Surveying students’ understanding of quantum mechanics in one spatial dimension, Am. J. Phys. 80, 252 (2012).
- E. Cataloglu and R. Robinett, Testing the development of student conceptual and visualization understanding in quantum mechanics through the undergraduate career, Am. J. Phys. 70, 238 (2002).
- S. Wuttiprom, M. D. Sharma, I. D. Johnston, R. Chitaree, and C. Soankwan, Development and use of a conceptual survey in introductory quantum physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 31, 631 (2009).
- R. J. Allain, Investigating the relationship between student difficulties with the concept of electric potential and the concept of rate of change, Doctoral thesis, North Carolina State University, 2001.
- J. Aslanides and C. M. Savage, Relativity concept inventory: Development, analysis, and results, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010118 (2013).
- P. Nieminen, A. Savinainen, and J. Viiri, Force concept inventory-based multiple-choice test for investigating students’ representational consistency, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020109 (2010).
- K. Mashood and V. A. Singh, An inventory on rotational kinematics of a particle: Unravelling misconceptions and pitfalls in reasoning, Eur. J. Phys. 33, 1301 (2012).
- M. Suárez, S. Pandiella, and J. Benegas, Tutorials+ PhET: A simple and efficient active-learning approach for the teaching of kinematics of circular motion in a technically-oriented high school, Phys. Educ. 58, 035005 (2023).
- L. G. Rimoldini and C. Singh, Student understanding of rotational and rolling motion concepts, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010102 (2005).
- C. Singh, Student understanding of symmetry and Gauss’s law of electricity, Am. J. Phys. 74, 923 (2006).
- J. M. Bailey, B. Johnson, E. E. Prather, and T. F. Slater, Development and validation of the star properties concept inventory, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 34, 2257 (2012).
- B. Brown and C. Singh, Development and validation of a conceptual survey instrument to evaluate students’ understanding of thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010104 (2021).
- S. Yeo and M. Zadnik, Introductory thermal concept evaluation: assessing students’ understanding, Phys. Teach. 39, 496 (2001).
- P. Wattanakasiwich, P. Taleab, M. D. Sharma, and I. D. Johnston, Construction and implementation of a conceptual survey in thermodynamics, Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ. 21, 29 (2013), https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/CAL/article/view/6459.
- S. J. Slater, The development and validation of the test of astronomy standards (TOAST), J. Astron. Earth Sci. Educ. 1, 1 (2014).
- P. Klein, A. Lichtenberger, S. Küchemann, S. Becker, M. Kekule, J. Viiri, C. Baadte, A. Vaterlaus, and J. Kuhn, Visual attention while solving the test of understanding graphs in kinematics: An eye-tracking analysis, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 025701 (2020).
- P. Barniol and G. Zavala, Test of understanding of vectors: A reliable multiple-choice vector concept test, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010121 (2014).
- Microsoft, Azure AI services, https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/ai-services [accessed June 2024].
- M. Danilák, Langdetect, https://pypi.org/project/langdetect/ [accessed December 2024].
- N. Sidiropoulos, S. H. Sohi, T. L. Pedersen, B. T. Porse, O. Winther, N. Rapin, and F. O. Bagger, SinaPlot: An enhanced chart for simple and truthful representation of single observations over multiple classes, J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 27, 673 (2018).
- F. Kieser, P. Wulff, J. Kuhn, and S. Küchemann, Educational data augmentation in physics education research using ChatGPT, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020150 (2023).
- OpenAI, OpenAI o3 and o4-mini, https://openai.com/index/introducing-o3-and-o4-mini/ [accessed May 2025].
- Y. Liang, D. Zou, H. Xie, and F. L. Wang, Exploring the potential of using ChatGPT in physics education, Smart Learn. Environ. 10, 52 (2023).
- E. Latif, R. Parasuraman, and X. Zhai, Physicsassistant: An LLM-powered interactive learning robot for physics lab investigations. in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN) (IEEE, New York, 2024), pp. 864–871.
- A. Lieb and T. Goel, Student interaction with NewtBot: An LLM-as-tutor chatbot for secondary physics education, in Proceedings of the CHI EA ’24: Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu HI (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2024), pp. 1–8, 10.1145/3613905.3647957.
- R. Kahaleh and V. Lopez, Evaluating large language models in high school physics education: Addressing misconceptions and fostering conceptual understanding, Phys. Educ. 60, 025013 (2025).
- K. E. Avila, S. Steinert, S. Ruzika, J. Kuhn, and S. Küchemann, Using ChatGPT for teaching physics, Phys. Teach. 62, 536 (2024).
- Y. Zhu, Z.-Y. Khoo, J. S. C. Low, and S. Bressan, A personalised learning tool for physics undergraduate students built on a large language model for symbolic regression, in Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IEEE, New York, 2024), pp. 38–43.
- G. Kortemeyer, M. Babayeva, G. Polverini, R. Widenhorn, and B. Gregorcic, Data for the paper “multilingual performance of a multimodal artificial intelligence system on multisubject physics concept inventories”, https://per-central.org/i/17053 (2025).