arXiv:2601.10696v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Generative AI (GenAI) is increasingly adopted in design education, yet evaluating its educational value through final outcomes provides an incomplete picture. This study compares two ecologically plausible workflows in an architectural conceptual design task: GenAI-assisted image generation and ArchDaily-based precedent search. The comparison concerns complete workflows rather than the isolated contributions. Thirty-six students completed a two-phase design task, first designing independently and then revising with their assigned workflow. Eight judges rated design performance, while participants reported task-specific and general creative self-efficacy and cognitive load after each phase. Difference-in-differences analyses showed no significant overall differences between the GenAI and precedent-search workflows in design performance, cognitive workload, or task-specific creative self-efficacy. Beyond these null overall effects, three patterns were observed. General creative self-efficacy showed a significant relative decline under the GenAI workflow. A subgroup analysis suggested higher revision-phase performance among novice students using GenAI than among those using precedent search (F (1,32) = 4.303, p = 0.046). However, this exploratory interaction should be interpreted cautiously due to low rating reliability, small subgroup cells, and imprecise estimation. Third, exploratory prompt analyses suggested that iterative, task-specific prompting strategies (CD3, CD6) were associated with cognitive load reductions at the uncorrected level, but neither association survived multiple-comparison correction. Overall, the GenAI workflow did not produce uniform gains. Its educational value may depend on pedagogical framing, learner characteristics, and human-AI interaction structure, underscoring the need to preserve creative agency and develop prompt literacy.

arXiv:2604.03893v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Breakthroughs in frontier theory often depend on the combination of concrete diagrammatic notations with rigorous logic. While multimodal large language models (MLLMs) show promise in general scientific tasks, current benchmarks often focus on local information extraction rather than the global structural logic inherent in formal scientific notations. In this work, we introduce FeynmanBench, the first benchmark centered on Feynman diagram tasks. It is designed to evaluate AI's capacity for multistep diagrammatic reasoning, which requires satisfying conservation laws and symmetry constraints, identifying graph topology, converting between diagrammatic and algebraic representations, and constructing scattering amplitudes under specific conventions and gauges. To support large-scale and reproducible evaluation, we developed an automated pipeline producing diverse Feynman diagrams along with verifiable topological annotations and amplitude results. Our database spans the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions of the Standard Model, encompasses over 100 distinct types and includes more than 2000 tasks. Experiments on state-of-the-art MLLMs reveal systematic failure modes, including unstable enforcement of physical constraints and violations of global topological conditions, highlighting the need for physics-grounded benchmarks for visual reasoning over scientific notation. FeynmanBench provides a logically rigorous test of whether AI can effectively engage in scientific discovery, particularly within theoretical physics.