Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Know the Ropes: A Heuristic Strategy for LLM-based Multi-Agent System Design

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Decomposing a task along its known algorithm turns weak LLMs into high-accuracy solvers on small optimization problems.

desk verdict Useful methodology for LLM-agent decomposition, but the headline accuracy numbers hinge on an unstated disjointness condition between profiling and evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16979 v1 pith:XXEBXJHU submitted 2025-05-22 cs.AI cs.MA

Zhenkun Li , Lingyao Li , Shuhang Lin , Yongfeng Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.MA
keywords Know-The-Ropesmulti-agentsystemstaskdecompositionLLMagentsNo-Free-LunchtheoremKnapsackproblemHungarianalgorithmbottleneckdiagnosis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Know-The-Ropes (KtR) is a design strategy for turning a weak language model into a reliable solver: instead of prompting one model to handle everything, recursively split the task along a known algorithm, give each piece a typed input/output contract, and orchestrate the pieces with a controller. The paper reports large gains on two optimization benchmarks. On the Knapsack problem, three GPT-4o-mini agents, with a single bottleneck agent fine-tuned on 1,200 examples, reach 95% accuracy on size-5 instances when the same model scores 3% with no task-specific training. On the Task-Assignment problem, a six-agent o3-mini blueprint reaches 100% up to size 10 and at least 84% at sizes 13–15 versus 11% or less without the decomposition. The insight is that the limiting factor is not raw model size but structure: problem knowledge plus targeted fixes can substitute for ever-larger models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the M-tractable hierarchy, a sequence of decompositions in which every leaf task is well-formulated (clear input domain, output co-domain, and correctness relation) and verified tractable by the base model, optionally with augmentation. The design loop carries the argument: build a blueprint from the known algorithm, profile each agent on held-out instances to find the bottleneck, then either fine-tune that leaf on a small dataset, add a self-check prompt, or split the task into two simpler leaves. Typed I/O contracts and a controller that enforces data dependencies and control flow prevent the cross-talk, context bloat, and duplicate work that audits of naive multi-agent systems blame for their failures. The weighted No-Free-Lunch theorem in Appendix A supplies the theoretical justification: a specialized algorithm with a concentrated prior has strictly lower expected risk than a universal one.

What would settle it

Run the same KSP blueprint on held-out instances of size 9–12 while keeping the Trimmer fine-tuned only on size 3–8 data; if end-to-end accuracy falls back to near the zero-shot baseline, the claim that patching a single bottleneck transfers across instance sizes is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that multi-agent systems fail not because LLMs are weak but because decompositions are not disciplined; when a problem is decomposed along its underlying algorithm, each subtask is small and well-specified enough that a modest model can handle it, and only the weakest step needs augmentation. KtR formalizes this as a blueprint hierarchy: tasks are recursively split into typed, controller-mediated subtasks, each verified to be tractable by the available model with no boost or the lightest viable boost. In the Knapsack case, profiling exposed the 'Trimmer' as the single bottleneck; fine-tuning just that agent on 1,200 step-by-step examples lifted the three-agent system from at most 18% to 95% on size-5 instances, with 70% at size 8. In the Task-Assignment case, the Hungarian algorithm's cover-seeking step was split into a Matcher and a Painter, driving a six-agent o3-mini system to 100% on sizes 6–10 and at least 84% at sizes 13–15, against a zero-shot baseline of at most 11% on the hardest sizes. The paper grounds this in a weighted No-Free-Lunch theorem: a specialized algorithm with a domain prior beats a general one when the prior is concentrated enough.

Load-bearing premise

The design loop works only when you already have cheap ground-truth labels for the subtasks, and when the small random instances used to find the bottleneck fail the same way the real instances do, so the one-agent fix carries over.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On Knapsack instances of size 3–8, a three-agent GPT-4o-mini system with one fine-tuned Trimmer reaches 95% accuracy at size 5 and 70% at size 8, up from a 3% zero-shot floor.
  • On Task-Assignment sizes 6–15, the six-agent o3-mini blueprint reaches 100% up to size 10 and at least 84% on sizes 13–15, where zero-shot o3-mini falls to 3–11%.
  • The improvement comes from targeted augmentation of a single bottleneck, not from upgrading the whole model or fine-tuning the whole task; the KSP fix used only 1,200 examples.
  • Because the gains grew when the backbone was upgraded from GPT-4o-mini to o3-mini, the authors claim KtR amplifies model capacity rather than saturating.
  • The formal definitions of well-formulated task, blueprint, decomposition, and M-tractable hierarchy give a repeatable recipe: decompose along the algorithm, verify each leaf, patch the weakest leaf.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If KtR is right, the practical implication is that the cheapest route to reliable LLM agents on structured problems is to invest in solver-aware decomposition tools and per-subtask label sets, not bigger base models.
  • The method's dependence on known algorithms and ground-truth labels means its biggest risk is on open-ended tasks without a classical solver; a natural test is whether the same diagnose-and-split cycle works when bottlenecks are found by heuristics or learned models rather than accuracy screens.
  • The cost model is incomplete: profiling every agent on held-out sets and running controller-mediated loops adds latency and tokens, so KtR's advantage could narrow on tasks where each instance is cheap and the overhead dominates.
  • The reported gains are on small, fully specified random instances; extending to noisy or adversarial inputs would require re-running the profiling loop each time the distribution shifts, which the paper leaves to future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Know-The-Ropes (KtR), a heuristic strategy for designing LLM-based multi-agent systems by recursively decomposing a task into typed, controller-mediated subtasks that mirror a known algorithm, and by augmenting only the bottleneck agent with the lightest viable boost. The authors report two case studies: on 0/1 Knapsack (3–8 items), a three-agent GPT-4o-mini blueprint improves zero-shot accuracy from 3% to 95% on size-5 instances after fine-tuning a single Trimmer agent; on the Task-Assignment Problem (6–15 jobs), a six-agent o3-mini blueprint reaches nearly 100% accuracy up to size 10 and at least 84% on sizes 13–15, versus an 11% zero-shot baseline. The paper also provides a weighted No-Free-Lunch theorem in Appendix A as motivation, a description of the KtR workflow, prompt galleries, and a limitations section.

Significance. If the reported results hold under a clean evaluation protocol, the paper makes a useful practical contribution: it suggests that algorithm-aware decomposition plus targeted fine-tuning can turn modest LLMs into reliable solvers on small, well-structured optimization instances, without relying on larger monolithic models. The paper has several concrete strengths: ground truth is generated with Google OR-Tools, per-agent profiling is used to identify bottlenecks, the prompts are included in the appendix, and the authors explicitly disclaim originality of the NFL theorem and acknowledge the label-availability assumption. However, the current evidence is weakened by the absence of explicit data splits, sample sizes, and uncertainty estimates, so the significance is conditional on a revision that addresses those points.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1.2 and §5.2.2] The central accuracy claims are reported without stating whether the instances used for agent profiling, fine-tuning, and final evaluation are disjoint. For KSP, the Trimmer is identified as the bottleneck and fine-tuned on 1,200 examples, and end-to-end accuracy is then reported; for TAP, agents are "stress-tested" on size bands 6-10 and 11-15, the Cover Seeker is split into Matcher and Painter based on those results, and final accuracy is reported on the same bands. If the final test instances overlap with the instances used to choose the decomposition or to fine-tune, the headline gains (95% on KSP size 5, 84% on TAP sizes 13-15) are selection artifacts rather than validation of KtR. The paper must state the exact data split, the number of instances in each set, and the procedure used to ensure disjointness.
  2. [§5.1.2, §5.2.2, Figures 3 and 5] Every accuracy figure is a single point with no number of test instances, no random seeds, and no confidence intervals (e.g., Figure 3I: 95%, 90%, 95%, 85%, 76%, 70%; Figure 5H: near 100%, 95%, 97%, 90%, 93%, 84%). With small synthetic instance sizes and stochastic LLM decoding, a few dozen instances could make these differences compatible with noise. The authors should report per-point test-set sizes and repeated-run variability.
  3. [§5.2.2] The decomposition of Cover Seeker into Matcher and Painter is explicitly motivated by stress-test results on matrix sizes 6-10 and 11-15, and the final system is then evaluated on the same size bands. Even if instances are disjoint and drawn from the same generator, this is model selection on the evaluation distribution; the reported numbers do not measure how well the KtR procedure transfers to a new problem distribution. An independent held-out distribution, or a pre-registered split with the profiling phase fixed before test evaluation, is needed to support the generalization claim made in the abstract.
  4. [§4.2.1 and §B.3] The Task-Assignment Problem is formally defined as maximizing the sum of selected costs (Z = max over permutations of the sum of C_{iσ(i)}), but the Hungarian algorithm, all TAP prompts, and the OR-Tools ground-truth description are for minimizing total assignment cost. As written, the formal objective is inconsistent with the evaluated task. Please correct the sign/objective and state which cost convention the reported accuracies use.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.2.1] The text refers to "the only reasoning model, GPT-4o-mini" in the TAP baseline discussion, but the TAP experiments use o3-mini; the same sentence reports difficulty levels "from 3 to 8 tasks," although TAP is evaluated at sizes 6-15. These inconsistencies should be fixed.
  2. [Figures 3 and 5] There are several typos and unclear labels in the figures and captions ("mulit-agent", "descreases", "Figure 3B s"), and the per-agent accuracy values are only shown graphically without an accompanying table of exact numbers or counts.
  3. [Abstract and Appendix A] The abstract says KtR is "grounded in the No-Free-Lunch theorem," but Appendix A is a direct algebraic rearrangement of a weighted NFL inequality, and the authors explicitly disclaim originality; the theorem is used as motivation rather than as a derivation of the decomposition or augmentation choices. The wording could be softened to avoid overstating the theorem's role.
  4. [Appendix C] No code, random seeds, or data-generation scripts are provided for the OR-Tools ground-truth generation, which limits reproducibility. Including the generation procedure and instance-level test counts would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the KtR results are empirical measurements, not derivations from their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical design strategy, and its headline numbers (KSP 3% to 95%, TAP 11% to 84%) are measured end-to-end accuracies after bottleneck-driven augmentation. No equation defines those accuracies as the fitted quantity; the bottleneck is located by held-out accuracy screens and the Trimmer is fine-tuned on 1,200 examples, but the final accuracy is reported as a post-hoc observation, not as a quantity forced by construction. The No-Free-Lunch material in Appendix A is explicitly presented as motivation with the disclaimer that "We do not claim any originality of the theorem and the proof," and the weighted-NFL inequality is a simple algebraic rearrangement of expected loss, not a derivation of the empirical results. The KtR definitions (M-tractable, hierarchy, instantiation) are formal scaffolding for a heuristic, and the statement that correctness "hinges on model capabilities that have been explicitly validated" describes a design-loop precondition, not a self-fulfilling prediction. Citations to Kuhn (1955), Bellman (1957), and OR-Tools are external algorithms used as blueprints; no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. The only in-scope concern is that the paper never states whether profiling and fine-tuning instances are disjoint from final evaluation instances; that is an experimental-validity and reporting caveat, acknowledged in Section 7's "Bottleneck identification heuristic" limitation, and it does not constitute circularity in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is light: the paper leans on standard algorithms and LLM capabilities rather than invented objects. Its main unpaid premise is that LLM leaves remain accurate enough in a loop and that labels exist for profiling.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math No-Free-Lunch theorem (Wolpert and Macready 1997): no algorithm beats all others under uniform priors; Appendix A restates a weighted version.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 to argue for domain-specific decomposition; the weighted variant is proved in Appendix A with a trivial calculation.
  • standard math Correctness of the dynamic-programming solution for 0/1 Knapsack and of the Hungarian algorithm for assignment.
    KtR blueprints in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2 assume these algorithms are correct and that executing them stepwise by LLM agents preserves the optimum if each step is correct.
  • domain assumption Each terminal task is M-tractable after optional augmentation (Definition 3.4); empirically verified on two tasks.
    The whole method requires that each leaf subtask be solvable with high accuracy by the base model; verified for KSP and TAP leaves but not for other domains (Section 7 narrow task scope).
  • ad hoc to paper A domain prior concentrated on structured instances exists, satisfying the weighted-NFL condition p > (epsilon0 - epsilon2)/(epsilon1 - epsilon2).
    The authors never estimate p or the epsilon values; the inequality is used qualitatively to motivate specialization, not to guide design decisions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Know the Ropes: A Heuristic Strategy for LLM-based Multi-Agent System Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XXEBXJHU

@misc{pith2026250516979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Know the Ropes: A Heuristic Strategy for LLM-based Multi-Agent System Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XXEBXJHU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16979}
}
read the original abstract

Single-agent LLMs hit hard limits--finite context, role overload, and brittle domain transfer. Conventional multi-agent fixes soften those edges yet expose fresh pains: ill-posed decompositions, fuzzy contracts, and verification overhead that blunts the gains. We therefore present Know-The-Ropes (KtR), a framework that converts domain priors into an algorithmic blueprint hierarchy, in which tasks are recursively split into typed, controller-mediated subtasks, each solved zero-shot or with the lightest viable boost (e.g., chain-of-thought, micro-tune, self-check). Grounded in the No-Free-Lunch theorem, KtR trades the chase for a universal prompt for disciplined decomposition. On the Knapsack problem (3-8 items), three GPT-4o-mini agents raise accuracy from 3% zero-shot to 95% on size-5 instances after patching a single bottleneck agent. On the tougher Task-Assignment problem (6-15 jobs), a six-agent o3-mini blueprint hits 100% up to size 10 and 84% on sizes 13-15, versus 11% zero-shot. Algorithm-aware decomposition plus targeted augmentation thus turns modest models into reliable collaborators--no ever-larger monoliths required.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16979 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the Know-The-Ropes (KtR) strategy: heuristic, prior-guided decomposition of a complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. KSP baseline performance from single LLMs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. KSP evaluation of the KtR stategy. B: Zero-shot accuracy of the baseline model. C: Zero-shot accuracy after a light, task-specific fine-tune of the same model. D & G: Blueprints of the MAS without (D) and with (G) augmentations. E: Per-agent accuracies before augmentation, revealing the system’s bottleneck. H: Boost delivered by two targeted augmentations—task-level fine-tuning and self-check prompting—applied to th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: TAP baseline performance from single LLMs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: TAP evaluation of the KtR strategy. B: Zero-shot accuracy of the baseline model. D: Initial blueprint derived from the Hungarian algorithm; its end-to-end accuracy is shown in C. F: Per-agent accuracies within this blueprint, prompting the finer decomposition outlined …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Node-as-Agent: Graph Agentic Network

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A node-as-agent framework where a frozen LLM plans each node's local and global message passing achieves competitive Cora accuracy without training, but uses per-dataset prompt selection and leaves label-leakage quest...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Anonymous. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=URUMBfrHFy Code in harmony: Evaluating multi-agent frameworks . In Submitted to CS598 LLM Agent 2025 Workshop. Under review

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Richard Bellman. 1957. Dynamic Programming. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA

    work page 1957

  5. [5]

    Xiaohe Bo, Zeyu Zhang, Quanyu Dai, Xueyang Feng, Lei Wang, Rui Li, Xu Chen, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024. Reflective multi-agent collaboration based on large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:138595--138631

    2024

  6. [6]

    Mert Cemri, Melissa Z Pan, Shuyi Yang, Lakshya A Agrawal, Bhavya Chopra, Rishabh Tiwari, Kurt Keutzer, Aditya Parameswaran, Dan Klein, Kannan Ramchandran, and 1 others. 2025. Why do multi-agent llm systems fail? arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13657

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2024. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Sirui Hong, Xiawu Zheng, Jonathan Chen, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao Zhang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, and 1 others. 2023. Metagpt: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00352, 3(4):6

    arXiv 2023

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Wenyue Hua, Lizhou Fan, Lingyao Li, Kai Mei, Jianchao Ji, Yingqiang Ge, Libby Hemphill, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2023. War and peace (waragent): Large language model-based multi-agent simulation of world wars. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17227

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    u chemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan G \

    Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Se ler, Stefan K \"u chemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan G \"u nnemann, Eyke H \"u llermeier, and 1 others. 2023. Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and challenges of large language models for edu...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Harold W. Kuhn. 1955. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.3800020109 The hungarian method for the assignment problem . Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 2(1-2):83--97

    1955 doi

  4. [12]

    Guohao Li, Hasan Hammoud, Hani Itani, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Bernard Ghanem. 2023. Camel: Communicative agents for" mind" exploration of large language model society. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:51991--52008

    2023

  5. [13]

    Hang Li, Tianlong Xu, Ethan Chang, and Qingsong Wen. 2025. Knowledge tagging with large language model based multi-agent system. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 28775--28782

    2025

  6. [14]

    Shuhang Lin, Wenyue Hua, Lingyao Li, Che-Jui Chang, Lizhou Fan, Jianchao Ji, Hang Hua, Mingyu Jin, Jiebo Luo, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-demo.18 B attle A gent: Multi-modal dynamic emulation on historical battles to complement historical a...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Hao Ma, Tianyi Hu, Zhiqiang Pu, Liu Boyin, Xiaolin Ai, Yanyan Liang, and Min Chen. 2024. Coevolving with the other you: Fine-tuning llm with sequential cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:15497--15525

    2024

  8. [16]

    Melissa Z Pan, Mert Cemri, Lakshya A Agrawal, Shuyi Yang, Bhavya Chopra, Rishabh Tiwari, Kurt Keutzer, Aditya Parameswaran, Kannan Ramchandran, Dan Klein, and 1 others. 2025. Why do multiagent systems fail? In ICLR 2025 Workshop on Building Trust in Language Models and Applications

    2025

  9. [17]

    Laurent Perron and Vincent Furnon. 2022. Google OR-Tools . https://developers.google.com/optimization

    2022

  10. [18]

    Jianing Qiu, Kyle Lam, Guohao Li, Amish Acharya, Tien Yin Wong, Ara Darzi, Wu Yuan, and Eric J Topol. 2024. Llm-based agentic systems in medicine and healthcare. Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(12):1418--1420

    2024

  11. [19]

    Raphael Shu, Nilaksh Das, Michelle Yuan, Monica Sunkara, and Yi Zhang. 2024. Towards effective genai multi-agent collaboration: Design and evaluation for enterprise applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05449

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Darren Shu Jeng Ting, Kabilan Elangovan, Laura Gutierrez, Ting Fang Tan, and Daniel Shu Wei Ting. 2023. Large language models in medicine. Nature medicine, 29(8):1930--1940

    2023

  13. [21]

    Khanh-Tung Tran, Dung Dao, Minh-Duong Nguyen, Quoc-Viet Pham, Barry O'Sullivan, and Hoang D Nguyen. 2025. Multi-agent collaboration mechanisms: A survey of llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06322

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Junlin Wang, Jue Wang, Ben Athiwaratkun, Ce Zhang, and James Zou. 2024. Mixture-of-agents enhances large language model capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04692

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Zhexuan Wang, Yutong Wang, Xuebo Liu, Liang Ding, Miao Zhang, Jie Liu, and Min Zhang. 2025. Agentdropout: Dynamic agent elimination for token-efficient and high-performance llm-based multi-agent collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18891

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, and 1 others. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824--24837

    2022

  17. [25]

    David H Wolpert. 2021. What is important about the no free lunch theorems? In Black box optimization, machine learning, and no-free lunch theorems, pages 373--388. Springer

    2021

  18. [26]

    David H Wolpert and William G Macready. 1997. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, 1(1):67--82

    1997

  19. [27]

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, and 1 others. 2023 a . Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Shijie Wu, Ozan Irsoy, Steven Lu, Vadim Dabravolski, Mark Dredze, Sebastian Gehrmann, Prabhanjan Kambadur, David Rosenberg, and Gideon Mann. 2023 b . Bloomberggpt: A large language model for finance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17564

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ziwei Xu, Sanjay Jain, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2024. Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limitation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.11817

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Yuwei Yan, Qingbin Zeng, Zhiheng Zheng, Jingzhe Yuan, Jie Feng, Jun Zhang, Fengli Xu, and Yong Li. 2024. Opencity: A scalable platform to simulate urban activities with massive llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21286

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ye Ye. 2025. Task memory engine (tme): Enhancing state awareness for multi-step llm agent tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08525

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Huizi Yu, Jiayan Zhou, Lingyao Li, Shan Chen, Jack Gallifant, Anye Shi, Xiang Li, Wenyue Hua, Mingyu Jin, Guang Chen, and 1 others. 2024. Aipatient: Simulating patients with ehrs and llm powered agentic workflow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18924

    2024

  25. [33]

    Bowen Zhang and Pengcheng Luo. 2025. Or-llm-agent: Automating modeling and solving of operations research optimization problem with reasoning large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10009

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Yusen Zhang, Ruoxi Sun, Yanfei Chen, Tomas Pfister, Rui Zhang, and Sercan Arik. 2024. Chain of agents: Large language models collaborating on long-context tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:132208--132237

    2024

  27. [35]

    Kunlun Zhu, Hongyi Du, Zhaochen Hong, Xiaocheng Yang, Shuyi Guo, Zhe Wang, Zhenhailong Wang, Cheng Qian, Xiangru Tang, Heng Ji, and 1 others. 2025. Multiagentbench: Evaluating the collaboration and competition of llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01935

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.