Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Use of a genetic algorithm to find solutions to introductory physics problems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a genetic algorithm can reconstruct a correct step-by-step solution to any one-dimensional kinematics problem by evolving a sequence of equations whose knowns and unknowns are as evenly matched as possible.

desk verdict A nice toy idea for equation sequencing, but the 'any 1D kinematics' claim is far beyond what the abstract supports, and the supplied full text is unreadable. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10920 v1 pith:35TGLOA7 submitted 2025-08-07 cs.NE

Tom Bensky , Justin Kopcinski This is my paper
classification cs.NE
keywords geneticalgorithmequationsequencingone-dimensionalkinematicsknownsversusunknownsfitnessfunctionintroductoryphysicsstep-by-stepsolutionsinterpretability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The authors treat solving an introductory physics problem not as applying a reasoning engine, but as searching over sequences of equations. A genetic algorithm evolves candidate sequences; its fitness function rewards sequences in which the number of known quantities closely matches the number of unknowns, with the student supplying the knowns by answering the algorithm's questions about what quantities appear in the problem. They claim this balance metric is enough to guide the search to a correct, human-readable solution for any one-dimensional kinematics problem. If true, a student could be walked through problems by an algorithm that knows no physics beyond the equations in its library.

What carries the argument

The chromosome encoding of a candidate equation sequence, paired with the fitness function that measures the difference between the number of unknowns and the number of knowns in the current equation set. The genetic algorithm uses the chromosome to enumerate questions about which physical quantities the student sees, then uses high-fitness equations to produce intermediate results that become knowns for lower-fitness equations, so the search is driven entirely by this known/unknown balance.

What would settle it

Take a standard collection of one-dimensional kinematics problems from an introductory textbook, run the described genetic algorithm with the stated equation library, and check whether every problem terminates at the requested quantity with a correct numeric or symbolic answer; a single problem that stalls with balanced but inapplicable equations, or that has multiple equally balanced sequences with different outcomes, falsifies the 'any problem' claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the task of solving a 1D kinematics problem reduces to finding a sequence of equations from a library such that the known/unknown gap in the equation set is minimized, and that a genetic algorithm operating only on a fitness function comparing knowns and unknowns can find that sequence. The algorithm asks the student which physical quantities are present, encodes candidate equation sequences on chromosomes, and uses intermediate results from high-fitness equations as new knowns for lower-fitness equations. The authors state that this technique can guide a student to an answer to any introductory physics problem involving one-dimensional kinematics, and they discuss

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that minimizing the difference between knowns and unknowns in a sequence of equations is a reliable sign that the sequence is physically applicable and will terminate at the requested quantity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, any 1D kinematics problem can be solved step by step by an algorithm with no physics knowledge beyond an equation library, making it a cheap basis for automated tutoring.
  • The equation sequence itself is a human-readable solution path, so the algorithm's output can be shown to students as worked steps rather than just a final number.
  • The known/unknown balance is problem-agnostic; the same machinery could be pointed at other equation-based subjects by swapping the equation library.
  • Because the algorithm asks the student which quantities are present, the interaction doubles as a diagnostic of what the student notices in the problem statement.
  • The 'any problem' claim, if correct, implies that the equation library and chromosome encoding cover the entire class of 1D kinematics problems, not just the worked examples.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The known/unknown balance is essentially a variable-counting heuristic; I would expect it to need a physical-applicability check whenever two equations share the same variable count but only one applies, since the fitness function alone cannot tell them apart.
  • A natural testable extension is to add two-dimensional kinematics with vector components: the same chromosome and fitness idea should generalize, but the known/unknown bookkeeping must treat components as separate quantities.
  • The interaction design makes success depend on the student reading the problem correctly, so misreported knowns would lead the search astray; this could be probed directly by feeding intentionally wrong answers.
  • The 'any' claim could be sharpened by enumerating the minimal equation library required for 1D kinematics and proving that the balance heuristic terminates on all problems expressible in that library.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using a genetic algorithm (GA) to find step-by-step solutions to introductory physics problems, specifically one-dimensional kinematics. The GA evolves sequences of equations; the fitness of a sequence is the difference between the number of known quantities (identified by the GA asking the student questions) and the number of unknowns. The abstract claims that this technique 'can guide a student to an answer to any introductory physics problem involving one-dimensional kinematics' and mentions interpretability findings. The version of the manuscript supplied is badly corrupted, with large portions unreadable; the readable portions describe the core idea and show illustrative equation sequences, but no systematic experimental evaluation.

Significance. The idea of framing physics problem solving as equation-sequence search is interesting and could have value as an educational tool if it is shown to produce correct, interpretable solution paths. However, the paper's central contribution is not established. The universal claim of solving 'any' one-dimensional kinematics problem is unsupported by either a formal correctness argument or an empirical benchmark. The known/unknown-count fitness is a plausible heuristic, but it is not shown to be a reliable proxy for solution correctness. If the authors narrow the claim to a proof-of-concept on a defined set of problems and add a careful evaluation, the underlying idea could be developed into a useful contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and fitness definition] The abstract's claim that the technique 'can guide a student to an answer to any introductory physics problem involving one-dimensional kinematics' is the load-bearing assertion, but it is not supported. The fitness function described in the main text is the difference between the number of knowns and unknowns in a candidate equation set. This syntactic balance is neither necessary nor sufficient for a correct derivation: a balanced set can contain algebraically dependent equations (e.g., v = Δx/Δt and Δx = v Δt), equations valid for different stages of the same motion, or equations that leave the target quantity implicit. The count gives no check of applicability conditions (e.g., constant acceleration), dimensional consistency, or algebraic solvability. No proof is provided that the GA terminates with the requested quantity solved, nor is a benchmark corpus supplied. The universal clai
  2. [Evaluation and experimental methodology] The manuscript does not contain a systematic empirical evaluation. The readable portions show illustrative equation sequences, but there is no defined test set of one-dimensional kinematics problems, no success rate, no comparison against a baseline, and no error analysis. To support even a weaker version of the claim, the authors should specify the GA parameters (population size, mutation and crossover rates, fitness weighting), describe the equation library, and report how often the final sequence is actually correct versus merely known/unknown-balanced. Reproducibility would also require providing the code and problem corpus. The absence of such evaluation is a major gap for a paper whose central claim is universal.
  3. [Student-in-the-loop and validation] The method relies on the student correctly answering the GA's questions about which quantities are known. A single incorrect answer changes the known/unknown count and can redirect the search toward an invalid sequence; this failure mode is not analyzed. In addition, because the fitness criterion and the final judgment of success are both the known/unknown balance, the method cannot distinguish a correct derivation from a balanced but inapplicable equation set. The paper should either validate final answers independently, e.g., by solving the resulting algebraic system, or explicitly state that the GA only proposes candidate equation sequences that require human verification. Without such independent validation, the 'answer' produced is only balanced in a syntactic sense.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General presentation] The submitted PDF has severe text corruption and encoding artifacts, making large sections unreadable. A clean, complete manuscript is required for proper review.
  2. [Notation and equations] Equations are not numbered, and symbols such as x, v, t, and a are not all defined explicitly. Please provide a table of notation and a clear statement of the equation library used by the GA.
  3. [GA parameters] The GA parameters are mentioned vaguely in the text. Provide a concrete table of the parameter values used in any experiments.
  4. [Interpretability discussion] The abstract promises 'interpretability findings,' but the readable portion does not describe what these findings are. Either add a dedicated section or remove this claim from the abstract.
  5. [References] The paper should cite standard genetic-algorithm references and prior work on automatic problem solving in physics to situate the contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the known/unknown fitness heuristic is a proxy, not an identity with the claimed 'any 1D kinematics' capability.

full rationale

The paper's core method is a GA that minimizes a known-vs-unknown count difference to select equation sequences (abstract: 'minimizing a fitness function that measures the difference between the number of unknowns versus knowns in a set of equations'). The claimed result is that this 'can guide a student to an answer to any introductory physics problem involving one-dimensional kinematics.' These are not the same proposition: the fitness is a syntactic proxy that could in principle be satisfied by dependent, inapplicable, or incomplete equation sets, so optimizing the fitness is not, by construction, identical to producing a correct physics derivation. The paper does not define 'answer' as 'balanced equation set'; it defines the task as finding a sequence that 'will lead to the needed answer.' Thus no equation in the supplied text makes the output equal to the input by construction. The absence of a formal proof or systematic benchmark for the universal 'any' claim is a genuine evidentiary weakness, but it is a correctness-risk issue rather than circularity. No load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or ansatz-by-citation steps are present in the provided text.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on an equation library, a known/unknown heuristic, and student-provided data. The GA hyperparameters and the completeness of the equation library are unspecified, and the heuristic itself is an unproven assumption.

free parameters (4)
  • GA population size
    Not specified in the abstract; hyperparameters affect the search performance and are free parameters.
  • GA mutation rate
    Not specified in the abstract; a free parameter that influences convergence.
  • GA crossover rate
    Not specified in the abstract; a free parameter for the genetic algorithm.
  • Fitness function weighting
    The exact form of the known/unknown difference and any weights are not given.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The set of equations for 1D kinematics is complete enough to solve any problem in that domain.
    The system cannot solve a problem unless the equation library contains all necessary equations. This is assumed by the claim of coverage for any problem.
  • domain assumption The student answers to the GA questions accurately identify the known quantities.
    The fitness evaluation depends on correct classification of knowns and unknowns from student responses; wrong answers would misdirect the search.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimizing the known/unknown difference is a sufficient proxy for finding a correct solution sequence.
    This heuristic is introduced by the paper and is not a general theorem of physics or optimization; it is the central assumption behind the fitness function.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Use of a genetic algorithm to find solutions to introductory physics problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/35TGLOA7

@misc{pith2026250810920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Use of a genetic algorithm to find solutions to introductory physics problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/35TGLOA7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10920}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we show how a genetic algorithm (GA) can be used to find step-by-step solutions to introductory physics problems. Our perspective is that the underlying task for this is one of finding a sequence of equations that will lead to the needed answer. Here a GA is used to find an appropriate equation sequence by minimizing a fitness function that measures the difference between the number of unknowns versus knowns in a set of equations. Information about knowns comes from the GA posing questions to the student about what quantities exist in the text of their problem. The questions are generated from enumerations pulled from the chromosomes that drive the GA. Equations with smaller known vs. unknown differences are considered more fit and are used to produce intermediate results that feed less fit equations. We show that this technique can guide a student to an answer to any introductory physics problem involving one-dimensional kinematics. Interpretability findings are discussed.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Houstis and J.R

    E.H. Houstis and J.R. Rice, editors. 1992. Modelling Physical Systems. Artificial Intelligence, Expert Systems and Symbolic Computing

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    E. Wenger. 1987. Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems: computational and cognitive approaches to the communication of knowledge . Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA

    work page 1987

  3. [3]

    Bundy, L

    A. Bundy, L. Byrd, G. Luger, C. Mellish, and M. Palmer. 1979. Solving mechanics problems using meta-level inference . 6th. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    Bensky and Catherine A

    Thomas J. Bensky and Catherine A. Taff. 2010. Computer-Guided Solutions to Physics Problems Using Prolog. Computing in Science & Engineering 12.1, 88-95. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2010.8

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2010.8 2010

  5. [5]

    Retrieved December 2024

    PhET Interative Simulations. Retrieved December 2024. http://phet.colorado.edu for a variety of web-based physics simulators

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Retrieved December 2024

    Collections and Resources for K-12 and Higher-Ed Physics and Astronomy Education (ComPADRE). Retrieved December 2024. https://www.aapt.org/ComPADRE/

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Retrieved December 2024

    Mastering Physics. Retrieved December 2024. https://www.pearson.com/en-us/higher-education/products-services/mastering/physics.html

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Retrieved December 2024

    PhET Global. Retrieved December 2024. https://phet.colorado.edu/en/phet-global

    work page 2024

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Ding and Y.C.X

    J. Ding and Y.C.X. Wei, Using Large Language Model to Solve and Explain Physics Word Problems Approaching Human Level. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.08182

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Abdin, et

    M. Abdin, et. al. Phi-4 Technical Report. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.08905

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Stefan K \"u chemann, et. al. 2024. Large language modelss--Valuable tools that require a sensitive integration into teaching and learning physics. Phys. Teach. , Vol. 62, pp. 400-402. https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0212374

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    V \'i ctor L \'o pez-Sim \'o and Mikael Frank Rezende, Jr., Challenging ChatGPT with Different Types of Physics Education Questions. Phys. Teach. 62, 290-294 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0160160

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    See ``Introducing study mode'' at https://openai.com/index/chatgpt-study-mode

  6. [14]

    Knight, et.al

    R. Knight, et.al. 2018. Student Solutions Manual for College Physics: A Strategic Approach, Volume 1 (Chapters 1-16). Pearson; 4th edition

    2018

  7. [15]

    Arons.1996

    A. Arons.1996. Teaching Introductory Physics . John Wiley and Sons

    1996

  8. [16]

    Koza, J.R. (1992). Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. The MIT Press

    1992

  9. [17]

    Michalewicz, Z. (2011). Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

    2011

  10. [18]

    But we have two acceleration zones, making a total of 24 total unknowns that need to be visited by some selection process

    We are guided here somewhat by the ``Coupon Collector's problem.'' In the sample problem, we have 1 object, each with 12 unknowns amongst the equation set. But we have two acceleration zones, making a total of 24 total unknowns that need to be visited by some selection process...

  11. [19]

    Goldberg, D.E. (1989). Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley Professional; 1st edition

    1989

  12. [20]

    and Russel, S

    Novig, P. and Russel, S. (2022). Artificial Intelligence, A Modern Approach. 4th ed. Pearson

    2022

  13. [21]

    The solution needs to be spotted by the student

    The algorithm is unaware of any particular solution goals, as its only job is the minimize unknowns in equations. The solution needs to be spotted by the student

  14. [22]

    Retrieved December 2024

    Four Principles of Explainable Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved December 2024. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2021/NIST.IR.8312.pdf

    2024

  15. [23]

    Xu, F., Uszkoreit, H., Du, Y., Fan, W., Zhao, D., Zhu, J. (2019). Explainable AI: A Brief Survey on History, Research Areas, Approaches and Challenges. In: Tang, J., Kan, MY., Zhao, D., Li, S., Zan, H. Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing. NLPCC 2019. Lecture Note...

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    How might LLMs store facts

    Grant Sanderson. How might LLMs store facts. Video.( 31 August 2024.) Retrieved January 2025 from https://youtu.be/9-Jl0dxWQs8?si=0hZEurobpSKP19sH

    2024

  17. [25]

    One runner ran at a constant speed, and the other accelerated before also reaching a constant speed

    For example, we ran the algorithm for a problem involving the eventual meeting point of two runners. One runner ran at a constant speed, and the other accelerated before also reaching a constant speed. The genetic algorithm exhibited productive sequences of generations early o...

  18. [26]

    George Marsaglia and Robert G. Brown. Retrieved December 2024. Dieharder: A Random Number Generator Test Suite. Duke University Physics Department. https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/ rgb/General/dieharder.php

    2024

  19. [27]

    The Art of Computer Programming, Seminumerical Algorithms, Volume 2

    Donald Knuth (1997). The Art of Computer Programming, Seminumerical Algorithms, Volume 2. 3rd edition. Addison-Wesley

    1997

  20. [28]

    Lag tests up to 36 or more, represented a group of three tuples is not available by the Diehard test suite

  21. [29]

    F., Zhou, X., Liu, S

    Tsai, C. F., Zhou, X., Liu, S. S., Li, J., Yu, M., and Mei, H., ``Can Large Language Models Play Text Games Well? Current State-of-the-Art and Open Questions,'' https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02868

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.