跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.04077 · v1

From topology-optimization brief to solver-checked release: separating intent, admissibility and acceptance knowledge for language agents

首次提交 2026-11-03 07:40
版本更新 2026-11-03 07:40
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:40
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

An engineering solver can converge even when a language agent has misread the user's problem. AgenticTO makes this distinction inspectable by keeping three records separate: the proposed problem specification, deterministic formulation checks, and numerical acceptance of the solved design. We evaluated the workflow on 50 author-built topology-optimization briefs, injected faults, five numerical problems, and complete agent sessions. The tests used linear-elastic models with one load case. Geometry tools raised the primary provider's correct specifications and refusals from 37 to 44 of 50, while also increasing wrong specifications delivered as finished. Input-format feedback alone recovered most of the accuracy gain. The wrong specifications passed the formulation rules, which also missed most injected faults that changed the intended problem. Clarification corrected the remaining errors when an oracle supplied reference facts, but also prompted questions on fully specified briefs. Perfect accuracy under that oracle therefore does not establish performance with engineers. Numerical trials reached 73.7 million elements, although released designs used finer grids than requested. The records expose how a proposed problem becomes an accepted numerical result; agreement with the brief still needs a separate judgment.

作者备注:60 pages, 13 figures, 20 tables, including the supplementary appendix. Machine-readable supporting records are ancillary files. Code and data: https://github.com/nbbllxx0/From-brief-design-to-verified-release

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-03 07:40 · 最新观测版本

From topology-optimization brief to solver-checked release: separating intent, admissibility and acceptance knowledge for language agents

An engineering solver can converge even when a language agent has misread the user's problem. AgenticTO makes this distinction inspectable by keeping three records separate: the proposed problem specification, deterministic formulation checks, and numerical acceptance of the solved design. We evaluated the workflow on 50 author-built topology-optimization briefs, injected faults, five numerical problems, and complete agent sessions. The tests used linear-elastic models with one load case. Geometry tools raised the primary provider's correct specifications and refusals from 37 to 44 of 50, while also increasing wrong specifications delivered as finished. Input-format feedback alone recovered most of the accuracy gain. The wrong specifications passed the formulation rules, which also missed most injected faults that changed the intended problem. Clarification corrected the remaining errors when an oracle supplied reference facts, but also prompted questions on fully specified briefs. Perfect accuracy under that oracle therefore does not establish performance with engineers. Numerical trials reached 73.7 million elements, although released designs used finer grids than requested. The records expose how a proposed problem becomes an accepted numerical result; agreement with the brief still needs a separate judgment.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗