extent
Automating Modelica Module Generation Using Large Language Models: A Case Study on Building Control Description Language
Wan, Hanlong, Lu, Xing, Chen, Yan, Devaprasad, Karthik, Hinkle, Laura
Dynamic energy systems and controls require advanced modeling frameworks to design and test supervisory and fault tolerant strategies. Modelica is a widely used equation based language, but developing control modules is labor intensive and requires specialized expertise. This paper examines the use of large language models (LLMs) to automate the generation of Control Description Language modules in the Building Modelica Library as a case study. We developed a structured workflow that combines standardized prompt scaffolds, library aware grounding, automated compilation with OpenModelica, and human in the loop evaluation. Experiments were carried out on four basic logic tasks (And, Or, Not, and Switch) and five control modules (chiller enable/disable, bypass valve control, cooling tower fan speed, plant requests, and relief damper control). The results showed that GPT 4o failed to produce executable Modelica code in zero shot mode, while Claude Sonnet 4 achieved up to full success for basic logic blocks with carefully engineered prompts. For control modules, success rates reached 83 percent, and failed outputs required medium level human repair (estimated one to eight hours). Retrieval augmented generation often produced mismatches in module selection (for example, And retrieved as Or), while a deterministic hard rule search strategy avoided these errors. Human evaluation also outperformed AI evaluation, since current LLMs cannot assess simulation results or validate behavioral correctness. Despite these limitations, the LLM assisted workflow reduced the average development time from 10 to 20 hours down to 4 to 6 hours per module, corresponding to 40 to 60 percent time savings. These results highlight both the potential and current limitations of LLM assisted Modelica generation, and point to future research in pre simulation validation, stronger grounding, and closed loop evaluation.
OMNI-EPIC: Open-endedness via Models of human Notions of Interestingness with Environments Programmed in Code
Faldor, Maxence, Zhang, Jenny, Cully, Antoine, Clune, Jeff
Open-ended and AI-generating algorithms aim to continuously generate and solve increasingly complex tasks indefinitely, offering a promising path toward more general intelligence. To accomplish this grand vision, learning must occur within a vast array of potential tasks. Existing approaches to automatically generating environments are constrained within manually predefined, often narrow distributions of environment, limiting their ability to create any learning environment. To address this limitation, we introduce a novel framework, OMNI-EPIC, that augments previous work in Open-endedness via Models of human Notions of Interestingness (OMNI) with Environments Programmed in Code (EPIC). OMNI-EPIC leverages foundation models to autonomously generate code specifying the next learnable (i.e., not too easy or difficult for the agent's current skill set) and interesting (e.g., worthwhile and novel) tasks. OMNI-EPIC generates both environments (e.g., an obstacle course) and reward functions (e.g., progress through the obstacle course quickly without touching red objects), enabling it, in principle, to create any simulatable learning task. We showcase the explosive creativity of OMNI-EPIC, which continuously innovates to suggest new, interesting learning challenges. We also highlight how OMNI-EPIC can adapt to reinforcement learning agents' learning progress, generating tasks that are of suitable difficulty. Overall, OMNI-EPIC can endlessly create learnable and interesting environments, further propelling the development of self-improving AI systems and AI-Generating Algorithms.
The Future of AI -- A Manifesto
This is still not directly definable, although we still know of human abilities that even the the best present programs on the fastest computers have not been able to emulate, such as playing master-level go and learning science from the Internet. Basic researchers in AI should measure their work as to the extent to which it advances this goal. AI research should not be dominated by near-term applications. DARPA should recall the extent to which its applied goals were benefitted by basic research. NSF should not let itself be seduced by impatience.