PRISM: Proof-Carrying Artifact Generation through LLM x MDE Synergy and Stratified Constraints

PRISM unifies Large Language Models with Model-Driven Engineering to generate regulator-ready artifacts and machine-checkable evidence for safety- and compliance-critical domains. PRISM integrates three pillars: a Unified Meta-Model (UMM) reconciles heterogeneous schemas and regulatory text into a single semantic space; an Integrated Constraint Model (ICM) compiles structural and semantic requirements into enforcement artifacts including generation-time automata (GBNF, DFA) and post-generation validators (e.g., SHACL, SMT); and Constraint-Guided Verifiable Generation (CVG) applies these through two-layer enforcement - structural constraints drive prefix-safe decoding while semantic/logical validation produces machine-checkable certificates. When violations occur, PRISM performs audit-guided repair and records generation traces for compliance review. We evaluate PRISM in automotive software engineering (AUTOSAR) and cross-border legal jurisdiction (Brussels I bis). PRISM produces structurally valid, auditable artifacts that integrate with existing tooling and substantially reduce manual remediation effort, providing a practical path toward automated artifact generation with built-in assurance.

PhyX: Does Your Model Have the "Wits" for Physical Reasoning?

Existing benchmarks fail to capture a crucial aspect of intelligence: physical reasoning, the integrated ability to combine domain knowledge, symbolic reasoning, and understanding of real-world constraints. To address this gap, we introduce PhyX: the first large-scale benchmark designed to assess models capacity for physics-grounded reasoning in visual scenarios. PhyX includes 3K meticulously curated multimodal questions spanning 6 reasoning types across 25 sub-domains and 6 core physics domains: thermodynamics, electromagnetism, mechanics, modern physics, optics, and wave\&acoustics. In our comprehensive evaluation, even state-of-the-art models struggle significantly with physical reasoning. GPT-4o, Claude3.7-Sonnet, and GPT-o4-mini achieve only 32.5\%, 42.2\%, and 45.8\% accuracy respectively-performance gaps exceeding 29\% compared to human experts. Our analysis exposes critical limitations in current models: over-reliance on memorized disciplinary knowledge, excessive dependence on mathematical formulations, and surface-level visual pattern matching rather than genuine physical understanding. We provide in-depth analysis through fine-grained statistics, detailed case studies, and multiple evaluation paradigms to thoroughly examine physical reasoning capabilities. To ensure reproducibility, we implement a compatible evaluation protocol based on widely-used toolkits such as VLMEvalKit, enabling one-click evaluation.