Multimodal large language models and physics visual tasks: comparative analysis of performance and costs

Abstract Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) capable of processing both text and visual inputs are increasingly being explored for uses in physics education, such as tutoring, formative assessment, and grading. This study evaluates a range of publicly available MLLMs on a set of standardized, image-based physics research-based conceptual assessments (concept inventories). We benchmark 15 models from three major providers (Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI) across 102 physics items, focusing on two main questions: (1) How well do these models perform on conceptual physics tasks involving visual representations? and (2) What are the financial costs associated with their use? The results show high variability in both performance and cost. The performance of the tested models ranges from 81.5% to as low as 21%. We also found that expensive models do not always outperform cheaper ones and that, depending on the demands of the context, cheaper models may be sufficiently capable for some tasks. This is especially relevant in contexts where financial resources are limited or for large-scale educational implementation of MLLMs. By providing these analyses, our aim is to inform teachers, institutions, and other educational stakeholders so that they can make evidence-based decisions about the selection of models for use in AI-supported physics education.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Physics
Published
2025-09-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/ae03f8
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Topic Modeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
9.92
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Multimodal large language models and physics visual tasks: comparative analysis of performance and costs

Bor Gregorcic, Giulia Polverini
4 citations
European Journal of Physics
Topic Modeling
9.92
article

Multimodal large language models and physics visual tasks: comparative analysis of performance and costs

Bor Gregorcic, Giulia Polverini
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Abstract Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) capable of processing both text and visual inputs are increasingly being explored for uses in physics education, such as tutoring, formative assessment, and grading. This study evaluates a range of publicly available MLLMs on a set of standardized, image-based physics research-based conceptual assessments (concept inventories). We benchmark 15 models from three major providers (Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI) across 102 physics items, focusing on two main questions: (1) How well do these models perform on conceptual physics tasks involving visual representations? and (2) What are the financial costs associated with their use? The results show high variability in both performance and cost. The performance of the tested models ranges from 81.5% to as low as 21%. We also found that expensive models do not always outperform cheaper ones and that, depending on the demands of the context, cheaper models may be sufficiently capable for some tasks. This is especially relevant in contexts where financial resources are limited or for large-scale educational implementation of MLLMs. By providing these analyses, our aim is to inform teachers, institutions, and other educational stakeholders so that they can make evidence-based decisions about the selection of models for use in AI-supported physics education.

European Journal of PhysicsVol. 46(5)
Uppsala University (SE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Topic Modeling
9.92
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.