Agents reliably specify complex simulation problems from engineering requests
From 1D Benchmarks to Complex 3D Geometries: Can Agents Reliably Specify Problems for Automated PDE Simulation?
Artificial IntelligenceComputational Engineering, Finance, and Science
Summary
Setting up engineering simulations involves many steps like defining shapes, physics, and conditions. The authors studied whether AI agents can create detailed simulation setups correctly from engineering requests. They combined checks and clarifications to improve accuracy, achieving over 98% correctness on many test cases. Their system also works on complex 3D shapes and different types of simulations, helping engineers get reliable simulation results with less manual work.
What this means in practice
- •For engineering simulation teams: Produce accurate, complete simulation setups automatically from engineering problem descriptions to reduce manual errors and speed workflows.
- •For software developers for simulation tools: Integrate agent-based specification validation and clarification features to improve reliability and traceability of automated PDE simulations.
Authors
Akshat Jani, Sakhinana Sagar Srinivas, Venkataramana Runkana
Abstract
Turning an engineering request into a simulation requires consistent geometry, physics, boundary conditions, and numerical settings. Recent agent-assisted systems automate simulation setup, but successful execution alone does not establish whether the specification preserves the intended problem or correctly handles missing information. We study whether agents can reliably construct complete executable JSON specifications for automated geometry creation, meshing, PDE solving, and result export. Our workflow combines model extraction with deterministic scientific and capability checks, explicit clarification, and validated local patches that preserve unrelated accepted fields. We evaluate specification correctness, execution completion, and numerical verification separately. On 120 template-related requests, the full workflow achieves 98.3% correct first-turn specification and decision outcomes, compared with 92.5% for schema-assisted single shot and 82.5% for model-only: gains of 5.8 and 15.8 percentage points, respectively. It makes no false-ready decisions among the 42 requests requiring clarification or rejection. Component ablations identify contributions from scientific checks and conditional repair. Separate downstream studies cover 1D, 2D, and 3D steady and unsteady, linear and nonlinear problems, including flow and elasticity with complex three-dimensional wing geometries. A 30-case gallery demonstrates automated execution from retained JSON specifications, while 9 of 12 selected live user-to-results tests achieve joint specification, execution, export, and numerical-reference success (75.0%). These results support traceable, engineer-reviewed simulation assistance within the tested scope, while fresh-response regressions identify consistency as a priority for further improvement.