Somdatta Goswami
Publications
Dmsh: A Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Framework for All-Quad Mesh Generation
Generating high-quality meshes for arbitrary geometries remains a fundamental bottleneck in computational engineering, often demanding heuristic tuning and semi-manual workflows. In this paper, we introduce Dmsh, a first fully automated reinforcement learning pipeline that unifies geometric decomposition and quadrilateral mesh generation within a single learning-based framework. Dmsh decomposes the problem through three coordinated agents handling topology simplification, geometric regularization, and mesh generation. The meshing process is formulated as a Markov Decision Process and solved using a parametric Soft Actor-Critic architecture with decoupled critics, enabling efficient exploration of a hybrid discrete-continuous action space. A curriculum learning strategy ensures scalability from simple domains to highly complex geometries, suppressing seed variance. By design, the recursive decomposition enables parallel meshing of subregions, yielding globally conforming all-quadrilateral meshes without post hoc correction. Across a wide range of benchmarks, Dmsh consistently outperforms existing methods in automation, robustness, and mesh quality, establishing a new paradigm for learning-based mesh generation.
Can Coding Agents Reproduce Findings in Computational Materials Science?
Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous coding agents and have achieved remarkably strong performance on software engineering benchmarks. However, it is unclear whether such success transfers to computational scientific workflows, where tasks require not only strong coding ability, but also the ability to navigate complex, domain-specific procedures and to interpret results in the context of scientific claims. To address this question, we present AutoMat, a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based agents' ability to reproduce claims from computational materials science. AutoMat poses three interrelated challenges: recovering underspecified computational procedures, navigating specialized toolchains, and determining whether the resulting evidence supports a claim. By working closely with subject matter experts, we curate a set of claims from real materials science papers to test whether coding agents can recover and execute the end-to-end workflow needed to support (or undermine) such claims. We then evaluate multiple representative coding agent settings across several foundation models. Our results show that current LLM-based agents obtain low overall success rates on AutoMat, with the best-performing setting achieving a success rate of only 54.1%. Error analysis further reveals that agents perform worst when workflows must be reconstructed from paper text alone and that they fail primarily due to incomplete procedures, methodological deviations, and execution fragility. Taken together, these findings position AutoMat as both a benchmark for computational scientific reproducibility and a tool for diagnosing the current limitations of agentic systems in AI-for-science settings.