arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2601.01774cs.AIcs.CEcs.NAmath.NA
收藏

大型语言模型能解决工程方程吗?直接预测与求解器辅助方法的系统比较

Can Large Language Models Solve Engineering Equations? A Systematic Comparison of Direct Prediction and Solver-Assisted Approaches

Research and Development Sports Vision, Inc.(Sports Vision公司研发部);Research and Development Vizworld, Inc.(Vizworld公司研发部)

Sai Varun Kodathala, Rakesh Vunnam

AI总结:

本文研究了大型语言模型在解决工程方程中的表现,发现求解器辅助方法在精度上显著优于直接预测,尤其在电子领域效果突出。

摘要:

超越方程需要迭代数值求解,广泛存在于工程实践中,从流体力学摩擦因子计算到轨道位置确定。我们系统评估大型语言模型是否能通过直接数值预测解决这些方程,或者结合LLM符号操作与经典迭代求解器的混合架构是否更有效。测试六个最先进的模型(GPT-5.1,GPT-5.2,Gemini-3-Flash,Gemini-2.5-Lite,Claude-Sonnet-4.5,Claude-Opus-4.5)在十个工程领域的问题上,比较直接预测与求解器辅助计算,其中LLM制定控制方程并提供初始条件,而牛顿-拉夫森迭代执行数值求解。直接预测的平均相对误差为0.765至1.262,而求解器辅助计算的误差为0.225至0.301,代表误差减少67.9%至81.8%。领域特定分析显示电子领域(93.1%)因指数方程敏感性大幅改进,而流体力学(7.2%)的改进则较为有限,LLM在模式识别方面表现有效。这些发现表明,现代LLM在符号操作和领域知识检索方面表现优异,但在需要高精度的迭代算术方面存在困难,表明其最佳部署应作为智能接口连接经典数值求解器,而不是独立的计算引擎。

英文摘要:

Transcendental equations requiring iterative numerical solution pervade engineering practice, from fluid mechanics friction factor calculations to orbital position determination. We systematically evaluate whether Large Language Models can solve these equations through direct numerical prediction or whether a hybrid architecture combining LLM symbolic manipulation with classical iterative solvers proves more effective. Testing six state-of-the-art models (GPT-5.1, GPT-5.2, Gemini-3-Flash, Gemini-2.5-Lite, Claude-Sonnet-4.5, Claude-Opus-4.5) on 100 problems spanning seven engineering domains, we compare direct prediction against solver-assisted computation where LLMs formulate governing equations and provide initial conditions while Newton-Raphson iteration performs numerical solution. Direct prediction yields mean relative errors of 0.765 to 1.262 across models, while solver-assisted computation achieves 0.225 to 0.301, representing error reductions of 67.9% to 81.8%. Domain-specific analysis reveals dramatic improvements in Electronics (93.1%) due to exponential equation sensitivity, contrasted with modest gains in Fluid Mechanics (7.2%) where LLMs exhibit effective pattern recognition. These findings establish that contemporary LLMs excel at symbolic manipulation and domain knowledge retrieval but struggle with precision-critical iterative arithmetic, suggesting their optimal deployment as intelligent interfaces to classical numerical solvers rather than standalone computational engines.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑