Mayank Ravishankara

Mayank Ravishankara

As large language models (LLMs) advance toward expert-level performance in engineering domains, reliable reasoning under user-specified constraints becomes critical. In circuit analysis, for example, a numerically correct solution is insufficient if it violates established methodological conventions such as mesh directionality or polarity assignments, errors that can propagate in safety-critical systems. Yet it remains unclear whether frontier models truly apply first-principles reasoning or rely on entrenched training priors that conflict with explicit instructions. We introduce CircuChain, a diagnostic benchmark designed to disentangle instruction compliance from physical reasoning competence in electrical circuit analysis. CircuChain consists of counterbalanced Control/Trap problem pairs across five canonical circuit topologies, augmented with systematic variations in sign conventions, current orientations, and polarity definitions. A multi-stage verification pipeline, combining symbolic solvers, SPICE simulation, and an LLM-based error taxonomy, enables fine-grained attribution of failures to convention errors, physics errors, arithmetic mistakes, or hallucinations. Across 100 tasks per model, we observe a consistent Compliance-Competence Divergence. The strongest model evaluated exhibits near-perfect physical reasoning but a high rate of convention violations when Trap conditions deliberately invert natural sign patterns. Conversely, weaker models display lower physical fidelity yet superior adherence to explicit instructions. These results suggest that increased model capability does not guarantee improved constraint alignment and highlight the need for new evaluation frameworks that stress instruction-following under mathematically rigid domains. CircuChain provides one such framework and offers actionable insights for both engineering education and AI alignment research.

Mayank Ravishankara

We present PlotChain, a deterministic, generator-based benchmark for evaluating multimodal large language models (MLLMs) on engineering plot reading-recovering quantitative values from classic plots (e.g., Bode/FFT, step response, stress-strain, pump curves) rather than OCR-only extraction or free-form captioning. PlotChain contains 15 plot families with 450 rendered plots (30 per family), where every item is produced from known parameters and paired with exact ground truth computed directly from the generating process. A central contribution is checkpoint-based diagnostic evaluation: in addition to final targets, each item includes intermediate 'cp_' fields that isolate sub-skills (e.g., reading cutoff frequency or peak magnitude) and enable failure localization within a plot family. We evaluate four state-of-the-art MLLMs under a standardized, deterministic protocol (temperature = 0 and a strict JSON-only numeric output schema) and score predictions using per-field tolerances designed to reflect human plot-reading precision. Under the 'plotread' tolerance policy, the top models achieve 80.42% (Gemini 2.5 Pro), 79.84% (GPT-4.1), and 78.21% (Claude Sonnet 4.5) overall field-level pass rates, while GPT-4o trails at 61.59%. Despite strong performance on many families, frequency-domain tasks remain brittle: bandpass response stays low (<= 23%), and FFT spectrum remains challenging. We release the generator, dataset, raw model outputs, scoring code, and manifests with checksums to support fully reproducible runs and retrospective rescoring under alternative tolerance policies.

Mayank Ravishankara

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems have significantly reduced hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs) by grounding responses in external context. However, standard RAG architectures suffer from a critical vulnerability: Retrieval Sycophancy. When presented with a query based on a false premise or a common misconception, vector-based retrievers tend to fetch documents that align with the user's bias rather than objective truth, leading the model to "hallucinate with citations." In this work, we introduce Falsification-Verification Alignment RAG (FVA-RAG), a framework that shifts the retrieval paradigm from Inductive Verification (seeking support) to Deductive Falsification (seeking disproof). Unlike existing "Self-Correction" methods that rely on internal consistency, FVA-RAG deploys a distinct Adversarial Retrieval Policy that actively generates "Kill Queries"-targeted search terms designed to surface contradictory evidence. We introduce a dual-verification mechanism that explicitly weighs the draft answer against this "Anti-Context." Preliminary experiments on a dataset of common misconceptions demonstrate that FVA-RAG significantly improves robustness against sycophantic hallucinations compared to standard RAG baselines, effectively acting as an inference-time "Red Team" for factual generation.

Mayank Ravishankara, Varindra V. Persad Maharaj

This survey paper chronicles the evolution of evaluation in multimodal artificial intelligence (AI), framing it as a progression of increasingly sophisticated "cognitive examinations." We argue that the field is undergoing a paradigm shift, moving from simple recognition tasks that test "what" a model sees, to complex reasoning benchmarks that probe "why" and "how" it understands. This evolution is driven by the saturation of older benchmarks, where high performance often masks fundamental weaknesses. We chart the journey from the foundational "knowledge tests" of the ImageNet era to the "applied logic and comprehension" exams such as GQA and Visual Commonsense Reasoning (VCR), which were designed specifically to diagnose systemic flaws such as shortcut learning and failures in compositional generalization. We then survey the current frontier of "expert-level integration" benchmarks (e.g., MMBench, SEED-Bench, MMMU) designed for today's powerful multimodal large language models (MLLMs), which increasingly evaluate the reasoning process itself. Finally, we explore the uncharted territories of evaluating abstract, creative, and social intelligence. We conclude that the narrative of AI evaluation is not merely a history of datasets, but a continuous, adversarial process of designing better examinations that, in turn, redefine our goals for creating truly intelligent systems.