Automating modeling in mechanics: LLMs as designers of physics-constrained neural networks for constitutive modeling of materials
Marius Tacke, Matthias Busch, Kian Abdolazizi, Jonas Eichinger, Kevin Linka, Christian Cyron, Roland Aydin

TL;DR
This paper presents a framework where large language models automatically generate physics-constrained neural networks for constitutive modeling in mechanics, reducing expert effort and achieving high accuracy and generalization.
Contribution
It introduces a novel LLM-based method for on-demand generation of specialized neural networks for material modeling, integrating physical constraints and code synthesis.
Findings
LLM-generated CANNs match or outperform manual models in accuracy
The approach generalizes well to unseen loading and large deformations
Reduces the need for expert knowledge in constitutive modeling
Abstract
Large language model (LLM)-based agentic frameworks increasingly adopt the paradigm of dynamically generating task-specific agents. We suggest that not only agents but also specialized software modules for scientific and engineering tasks can be generated on demand. We demonstrate this concept in the field of solid mechanics. There, so-called constitutive models are required to describe the relationship between mechanical stress and body deformation. Constitutive models are essential for both the scientific understanding and industrial application of materials. However, even recent data-driven methods of constitutive modeling, such as constitutive artificial neural networks (CANNs), still require substantial expert knowledge and human labor. We present a framework in which an LLM generates a CANN on demand, tailored to a given material class and dataset provided by the user. The…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
The paper addresses an important and popular application area: the use of LLMs to automate and lower the barrier to entry for complex constitutive modeling tasks. The proposed framework, which combines LLM-based code generation with a physics-informed constitutive model ML framework (CANN), is clearly presented.
- The premise of using LLMs as code-generating/agents for scientific tasks is not novel; in fact, the paper's own literature review cites numerous recent examples. The specific task delegated to the LLM is a simple, "fill-in-the-blanks" hyperparameter selection for a small regression model within a predefined, human-authored code skeleton. This is far simpler than rigorous, established benchmarks like SWE-bench (which requires fixing real-world GitHub issues) or MLE-bench (which involves end-to-
1. The paper is very well written and clearly structured, making it easy to read and follow. 2. The experimental section is comprehensive, covering multiple material types (e.g., skin, rubber) and including both real and synthetic datasets. The authors also test generalisation to unseen loading conditions and visualise the results neatly.
Despite the clarity and reasonable set of experiments, the paper has several major weaknesses regarding its _significance_ and _originality_. 1. Limited contribution The core contribution appears minimal. The authors essentially provide a prompt template for the LLM to generate code implementing a CANN. The method section is very brief (roughly half a page) and mainly describes the two-part LLM prompt (summary of continuum mechanics + skeleton code). However, this lacks genuine research insi
- The core contribution is simple, elegant, and highly effective. Letting an LLM generate a specialized, physics-informed model is a powerful paradigm. This approach leverages the LLM’s strength in code generation, and combines it with existing research on constitutive modeling techniques. - The paper is really well-written and easy to follow. The motivation is clear, the background is explained concisely, and the proposed method is presented logically. The figures are informative and effectivel
- According to Table 2, the GenCANN architectures are consistently and significantly larger (i.e., more neurons and/or layers) than their manually-designed counterparts. For instance, the baseline CANN for skin has "12, 12" neurons per layer, while the GenCANN has "128, 128, 64, 32". This raises the question of whether the superior performance of GenCANN is due to the LLM's intelligent design or simply its increased model capacity. While the core contribution of automatically generating CANNs is
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMachine Learning in Materials Science · Model Reduction and Neural Networks · Composite Material Mechanics
