I appreciate the setup, but I notice there's no actual science answer to build follow-ups from yet. To generate the three follow-up questions you're looking for, I'd need you to:

I appreciate you framing this clearly. You're right: you've provided preprints about benchmarking and evaluating AI on physics questions, not preprints that answer a specific physics question from you.

These papers study *how well language models tackle physics problems* — they don't contain frontier physics results themselves. To generate meaningful follow-up questions for you, I'd need either:

1. An actual physics question (e.g., "How does the EmDrive work?" or "Can warp metrics satisfy the null energy condition?"), which I'd answer citing the archive, or

2. A clarification of what aspect of AI-physics-benchmarking you're curious about (e.g., "Why do LLMs fail at tacit reasoning in QFT?" [AG-2026.04-565]).

Which would be more helpful?