Physics Reasoner: Knowledge-Augmented Reasoning for Solving Physics Problems with Large Language Models

Physics problems constitute a significant aspect of reasoning, necessitating complicated reasoning ability and abundant physics knowledge. However, existing large language models (LLMs) frequently fail due to a lack of knowledge or incorrect knowledge application. To mitigate these issues, we propose Physics Reasoner, a knowledge-augmented framework to solve physics problems with LLMs. Specifically, the proposed framework constructs a comprehensive formula set to provide explicit physics knowledge and utilizes checklists containing detailed instructions to guide effective knowledge application. Namely, given a physics problem, Physics Reasoner solves it through three stages: problem analysis, formula retrieval, and guided reasoning. During the process, checklists are employed to enhance LLMs' self-improvement in the analysis and reasoning stages. Empirically, Physics Reasoner mitigates the issues of insufficient knowledge and incorrect application, achieving state-of-the-art performance on SciBench with an average accuracy improvement of 5.8%.

Co-Matching: Towards Human-Machine Collaborative Legal Case Matching

Recent efforts have aimed to improve AI machines in legal case matching by integrating legal domain knowledge. However, successful legal case matching requires the tacit knowledge of legal practitioners, which is difficult to verbalize and encode into machines. This emphasizes the crucial role of involving legal practitioners in high-stakes legal case matching. To address this, we propose a collaborative matching framework called Co-Matching, which encourages both the machine and the legal practitioner to participate in the matching process, integrating tacit knowledge. Unlike existing methods that rely solely on the machine, Co-Matching allows both the legal practitioner and the machine to determine key sentences and then combine them probabilistically. Co-Matching introduces a method called ProtoEM to estimate human decision uncertainty, facilitating the probabilistic combination. Experimental results demonstrate that Co-Matching consistently outperforms existing legal case matching methods, delivering significant performance improvements over human- and machine-based matching in isolation (on average, +5.51% and +8.71%, respectively). Further analysis shows that Co-Matching also ensures better human-machine collaboration effectiveness. Our study represents a pioneering effort in human-machine collaboration for the matching task, marking a milestone for future collaborative matching studies.