What specific physics domains show the largest gaps in LLM reasoning?

This is a great meta-question, but it's asking about *AI reasoning in general* rather than frontier physics itself. The preprints you've provided are benchmarks and studies of LLM performance, not physics research.

That said, they do paint a clear picture of where LLMs struggle most in physics:

The core gap is "tacit reasoning" — the ability to reconstruct omitted steps and enforce global consistency constraints. LLMs perform near-ceiling on explicit, step-by-step derivations within stable conceptual frames, but systematically degrade when intermediate reasoning must be inferred or when a solution requires reorganization under implicit structural rules [AG-2026.04-565]. This is especially acute in quantum field theory and string theory, where much of the logical structure is *not written down*.

Research-level problems remain largely unsolved. Across multiple recent benchmarks, state-of-the-art models (including o1 and o3-mini) solve most undergraduate-difficulty problems but fail on research-level tasks, particularly in high-energy theory and cosmology [AG-2025.02-240]. The CritPt benchmark found similar patterns across condensed matter, quantum physics, and mathematical physics when tasks require full-scale problem decomposition [AG-2025.09-1139].

Mathematical reasoning and symbolic manipulation are secondary bottlenecks. Fine-tuning small models on QFT shows that even domain-specific training helps less than expected, suggesting the core limitation is not computation but reasoning chain coherence [AG-2026.04-892].

None of these preprints actually address frontier propulsion or relativity physics directly.