Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Evaluating Large Language Models for Material Selection (2405.03695v1)

Published 23 Apr 2024 in cs.CL

Abstract: Material selection is a crucial step in conceptual design due to its significant impact on the functionality, aesthetics, manufacturability, and sustainability impact of the final product. This study investigates the use of LLMs for material selection in the product design process and compares the performance of LLMs against expert choices for various design scenarios. By collecting a dataset of expert material preferences, the study provides a basis for evaluating how well LLMs can align with expert recommendations through prompt engineering and hyperparameter tuning. The divergence between LLM and expert recommendations is measured across different model configurations, prompt strategies, and temperature settings. This approach allows for a detailed analysis of factors influencing the LLMs' effectiveness in recommending materials. The results from this study highlight two failure modes, and identify parallel prompting as a useful prompt-engineering method when using LLMs for material selection. The findings further suggest that, while LLMs can provide valuable assistance, their recommendations often vary significantly from those of human experts. This discrepancy underscores the need for further research into how LLMs can be better tailored to replicate expert decision-making in material selection. This work contributes to the growing body of knowledge on how LLMs can be integrated into the design process, offering insights into their current limitations and potential for future improvements.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (5)
  1. Daniele Grandi (13 papers)
  2. Yash Patawari Jain (2 papers)
  3. Allin Groom (2 papers)
  4. Brandon Cramer (2 papers)
  5. Christopher McComb (16 papers)
Citations (4)