DesignQA: A Multimodal Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models’ Understanding of Engineering Documentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research introduces DesignQA, a novel benchmark aimed at evaluating the proficiency of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in comprehending and applying engineering requirements in technical documentation. Developed with a focus on real-world engineering challenges, DesignQA uniquely combines multimodal data—including textual design requirements, CAD images, and engineering drawings—derived from the Formula SAE student competition. Unlike many existing MLLM benchmarks, DesignQA contains document-grounded visual questions where the input image and the input document come from different sources. The benchmark features automatic evaluation metrics and is divided into segments—Rule Comprehension, Rule Compliance, and Rule Extraction—based on tasks that engineers perform when designing according to requirements. We evaluate state-of-the-art models (at the time of writing) like GPT-4o, GPT-4, Claude-Opus, Gemini-1.0, and LLaVA-1.5 against the benchmark, and our study uncovers the existing gaps in MLLMs’ abilities to interpret complex engineering documentation. The MLLMs tested, while promising, struggle to reliably retrieve relevant rules from the Formula SAE documentation, face challenges in recognizing technical components in CAD images and encounter difficulty in analyzing engineering drawings. These findings underscore the need for multimodal models that can better handle the multifaceted questions characteristic of design according to technical documentation. This benchmark sets a foundation for future advancements in AI-supported engineering design processes. DesignQA is publicly available at online.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".