为工程类工具连接大模型设计了能力分解评估框架,可精准定位模型短板。
EngiAI: Capability-Based Evaluation of Tool-Connected LLM Agents for Engineering Design

- 按工作流执行、参数选择、高性能计算编排等能力拆解评估
- 商用模型在结构设计任务中完成率96-97%,开源模型仅55-78%
- 支持诊断失败原因,适合对比不同模型与工具接口性能
工程类智能体系统日益普及,但任务、工具和成功标准差异使结果难以比较,故障也难诊断。本文提出基于能力的评估框架EngiAI,用于评估工具连接的工程大模型代理。该框架通过执行日志和工程产出,分别评估工作流执行、检索辅助参数选择、高性能计算(HPC)编排及训练代码生成能力。在EngiBench Beams2D和Photonics2D任务上评估四种LLM后端发现:在Beams2D任务中,两款商用模型完成率达96-97%,开源模型为55-78%;涉及工具决策的任务在Photonics2D上仅完成20-53%。索引检索显著提升参数选择效果。在HPC编排方面,Gemini-3-Flash完成全部测试流程,GPT-5-mini完成50-70%。当需自主编写训练代码时,模型可填补小段空白,但在大区域留空时出现偏差。在开放合成层级,两款商用模型均选用条件变分自编码器而非参考的cGAN,Gemini-3-Flash在十次试验中七次达到更低最大均值差异。结果表明,应以能力维度独立评分,而非仅依赖端到端成功。该框架提供统一评估维度,有助于识别失败机制并比较模型、架构与工具接口。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Engineering-agent systems are proliferating, but differences in tasks, tools, and success criteria make demonstrations difficult to compare and failures difficult to diagnose. We introduce a capability-based evaluation framework for tool-connected engineering agents. The framework separately evaluates workflow execution, retrieval-assisted parameter selection, high-performance computing (HPC) orchestration, and training-code authoring using execution traces and resulting engineering artifacts. We evaluate four LLM backends on the EngiBench Beams2D and Photonics2D problems using EngiAI, a LangGraph reference implementation. On Beams2D, the two proprietary models complete 96-97% of workflow tasks, compared with 55-78% for the two open-source models. Workflows requiring tool-based decision-making perform worse on Photonics2D, reaching 20-53% completion. Indexed retrieval improves parameter selection. For HPC orchestration, Gemini-3-Flash completes every tested pipeline, whereas GPT-5-mini completes 50-70% through the final evaluation step. When the agents must write the training code themselves, they fill small gaps reliably but diverge as larger regions are left open. In the open-synthesis tier, both proprietary models select conditional variational autoencoders instead of the reference conditional Generative Adversarial Network (cGAN); Gemini-3-Flash achieves lower maximum mean discrepancy than the reference in seven of ten Beams2D trials. The results support capability-specific evaluation, with separate scores for distinct skills, rather than assessment through successful end-to-end demonstrations alone. The framework provides common evaluation dimensions for identifying failure mechanisms and structuring comparisons of models, agent architectures, and tool interfaces.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。