How do human physicists acquire this tacit structural knowledge during training versus how LLMs learn from text?

Your question falls outside the archive's scope—this collection focuses on frontier science (propulsion, relativity, mathematical physics, and how LLMs perform on physics problems), not on comparative cognitive science or pedagogy. Try asking about whether LLMs can solve specific physics problems, how they fail on tacit reasoning, or what training approaches improve their domain performance.

That said, the preprints do touch on *one* angle: how LLMs acquire physics knowledge during training differs starkly from how human physicists do.

The LLM side: Language models learn by predicting text tokens from huge arXiv and textbook corpora. When fine-tuned on physics, they absorb statistical patterns—word correlations, equation templates, logical argument structures [AG-2026.04-892]. A 7B-parameter model trained on 2,500+ synthetic QFT problems shows measurable gains in reasoning chains, but this is pattern matching at scale, not embodied understanding [AG-2026.04-892]. Even after fine-tuning, LLMs systematically fail when forced to reconstruct *omitted* reasoning steps or respect global consistency constraints—the hallmark of tacit knowledge [AG-2026.04-565]. They perform near-ceiling on explicit derivations in stable conceptual frames, but degrade when problems demand reorganization of representations [AG-2026.04-565]. Their understanding of QCD principles (color confinement, running coupling) shows "naturally idiosyncratic patterns" in how concepts embed in parameter space, suggesting shallow statistical encoding rather than structural grasp [AG-2025.11-1583].

The human side (implied): Humans acquire tacit structural knowledge through repeated problem-solving, mentorship, and *embodied* interaction with equations—writing, erasing, rearranging on a blackboard, feeling the conceptual friction when a derivation doesn't work. We build mental models that encode constraints non-locally. The archive doesn't directly compare the two, but the LLM failure modes hint at what we do better: reconstruct omitted steps by analogy, reorganize global representations fluidly, and encode structural relationships that survive representation changes.