On the Evaluation of Engineering Artificial General Intelligence

We discuss the challenges and propose a framework for evaluating engineering artificial general intelligence (eAGI) agents. We consider eAGI as a specialization of artificial general intelligence (AGI), deemed capable of addressing a broad range of problems in the engineering of physical systems and associated controllers. We exclude software engineering for a tractable scoping of eAGI and expect dedicated software engineering AI agents to address the software implementation challenges. Similar to human engineers, eAGI agents should possess a unique blend of background knowledge (recall and retrieve) of facts and methods, demonstrate familiarity with tools and processes, exhibit deep understanding of industrial components and well-known design families, and be able to engage in creative problem solving (analyze and synthesize), transferring ideas acquired in one context to another. Given this broad mandate, evaluating and qualifying the performance of eAGI agents is a challenge in itself and, arguably, a critical enabler to developing eAGI agents. In this paper, we address this challenge by proposing an extensible evaluation framework that specializes and grounds Bloom's taxonomy - a framework for evaluating human learning that has also been recently used for evaluating LLMs - in an engineering design context. Our proposed framework advances the state of the art in benchmarking and evaluation of AI agents in terms of the following: (a) developing a rich taxonomy of evaluation questions spanning from methodological knowledge to real-world design problems; (b) motivating a pluggable evaluation framework that can evaluate not only textual responses but also evaluate structured design artifacts such as CAD models and SysML models; and (c) outlining an automatable procedure to customize the evaluation benchmark to different engineering contexts.

Neuro Symbolic Reasoning for Planning: Counterexample Guided Inductive Synthesis using Large Language Models and Satisfiability Solving

Generative large language models (LLMs) with instruct training such as GPT-4 can follow human-provided instruction prompts and generate human-like responses to these prompts. Apart from natural language responses, they have also been found to be effective at generating formal artifacts such as code, plans, and logical specifications from natural language prompts. Despite their remarkably improved accuracy, these models are still known to produce factually incorrect or contextually inappropriate results despite their syntactic coherence - a phenomenon often referred to as hallucination. This limitation makes it difficult to use these models to synthesize formal artifacts that are used in safety-critical applications. Unlike tasks such as text summarization and question-answering, bugs in code, plan, and other formal artifacts produced by LLMs can be catastrophic. We posit that we can use the satisfiability modulo theory (SMT) solvers as deductive reasoning engines to analyze the generated solutions from the LLMs, produce counterexamples when the solutions are incorrect, and provide that feedback to the LLMs exploiting the dialog capability of instruct-trained LLMs. This interaction between inductive LLMs and deductive SMT solvers can iteratively steer the LLM to generate the correct response. In our experiments, we use planning over the domain of blocks as our synthesis task for evaluating our approach. We use GPT-4, GPT3.5 Turbo, Davinci, Curie, Babbage, and Ada as the LLMs and Z3 as the SMT solver. Our method allows the user to communicate the planning problem in natural language; even the formulation of queries to SMT solvers is automatically generated from natural language. Thus, the proposed technique can enable non-expert users to describe their problems in natural language, and the combination of LLMs and SMT solvers can produce provably correct solutions.