Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

TRIZ Agents: A Multi-Agent LLM Approach for TRIZ-Based Innovation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A team of specialized LLM agents can execute the TRIZ method end-to-end and produce inventive engineering solutions that overlap with a human expert team's.

desk verdict A useful proof-of-concept for multi-agent TRIZ, but the single case study used to build the system also serves as its only test, so the evidence demonstrates execution of a prescribed workflow, not generalizable invention. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18783 v1 pith:NCUBSKYD submitted 2025-06-23 cs.AI cs.MA

Kamil Szczepanik , Jaros{l}aw A. Chudziak This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.MA
keywords LargeLanguageModelsLLMagentsmulti-agentsystemsTRIZinventiveproblemsolvingagentorchestrationengineeringcasestudy
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

This paper argues that a team of large language model agents, each assigned a specialist role and given access to tools, can collectively execute the TRIZ inventive-problem-solving methodology on a real engineering problem and produce solutions of the same kind a human expert team would produce. The authors build a multi-agent system in which a Project Manager agent assigns subtasks to mechanical, electrical, control, safety, and operations engineers, a TRIZ specialist, and a documentation specialist, and the team works through TRIZ stages from system definition to solution generation. To test the system, they run it on a published 2024 case study about improving a gantry crane and compare every step's output against the human researchers' published results. They report that the agents identified the same physical contradictions as the human team, reproduced one of the proposed solutions, and generated additional solutions that are logical even where they differ. The intended significance is that a structured innovation method that normally demands deep interdisciplinary expertise could be largely automated, making TRIZ-style ideation faster and more accessible.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the pairing of TRIZ's formal abstraction ladder with a supervised multi-agent workflow. TRIZ supplies a fixed series of stages: define the engineering system, analyze functions, build a cause-effect chain, identify engineering and physical contradictions, use the Contradiction Matrix over the 39 TRIZ parameters to select among the 40 Inventive Principles, and convert those principles into concrete solutions. The system encodes that ladder as a graph of LLM agents: a Project Manager decides which agent acts next and when a step is finished, domain agents contribute analyses and can call a web-search tool, the TRIZ Specialist can additionally call tools that return the parameter list, the Contradiction Matrix entries, and detailed principle descriptions, plus a retrieval-augmented tool over TRIZ source texts, and a Documentation Specialist records each step. The documentation from completed steps is passed forward as context for the next step, so the team maintains continuity without carrying the full conversation.

What would settle it

Repeat the experiment on a gantry-crane or other engineering problem written after the model's training cutoff, with no prior public TRIZ analysis, and check whether the agent team still identifies the same contradictions and solutions as a human TRIZ team; if the overlap vanishes, the reported match is better explained by memorization than by inventive reasoning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that it is possible to model a human team's group work on an inventive problem using TRIZ and a multi-agent LLM system. The authors state this explicitly at the end of the study: the system demonstrated that such modeling is feasible. To establish it, they implement a supervised team of seven specialist agents plus a Project Manager, run it on the gantry crane case study, and compare each of the six workflow steps with the human team's documentation. The comparison shows partial overlap at every step: the agents named most of the same system components, identified overloading and rapid movements as root causes just as the human team did, found the identical physical contradictions (speed versus sway prevention, load capacity versus safety), and produced a sliding-mode-control solution with antiswing trajectory that matches the case study's first solution. The paper does not claim the outputs were identical; its claim is that collaborative LLM agents can follow TRIZ in a structured way and propose inventive, plausible solutions that could guide human researchers.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the language model used for the agents has never seen the target case study or its conclusions, so the overlaps with the human solution count as invention rather than recall; this premise rests on the model's October 2023 training cutoff and is never verified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A multi-agent LLM team can produce stepwise TRIZ documentation and a final solution proposal without a human in the loop, so the approach can serve as a fast first-pass ideation tool for engineering teams.
  • Because the system's outputs diverge from the human comparison set but remain plausible, the generated solutions can widen the range of options a human TRIZ team considers, rather than merely copying known answers.
  • The exact match on both physical contradictions and one proposed solution in the case study indicates that the method can converge with expert TRIZ reasoning on some problems, not just generate arbitrary suggestions.
  • The authors found that outcomes depend strongly on the agents' profiling prompts; adjusting prompts changes how often tools are used and which agents contribute, making prompt design the main control lever for this type of system.
  • The system's lack of a feedback loop means each step is solved and documented only once; the authors identify adding iteration as necessary to make the process more like real team problem-solving.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that a successful multi-agent TRIZ system would lower the entry barrier to structured innovation, potentially letting small firms run a virtual TRIZ team without hiring specialists.
  • An untested assumption hides in the training-data claim: if the model had seen TRIZ examples about gantry cranes during pretraining, the overlap in results could be recall rather than independent invention; a post-cutoff problem would settle this.
  • The documented underuse of the TRIZ retrieval tool implies that autonomy can work against grounding, so a design that forces tool calls at specific steps, or adds a verification agent, may improve reliability; this is an extension the paper does not test.
  • The same decomposition could be ported to smaller, open-weight models for cheaper operation; each subtask is small enough that such a port is a plausible next experiment, though the paper only reports results with one large model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents TRIZ Agents, a LangGraph-based multi-agent LLM system in which a Project Manager orchestrates specialist agents (mechanical, electrical, control systems, safety, TRIZ, operations, and documentation), each equipped with web search and TRIZ-specific tools, to execute a six-step TRIZ workflow on a gantry-crane improvement problem. The workflow, team composition, and input text are taken from a published case study (Luing et al., 2024), and the system's outputs are compared qualitatively with that case study. The authors report that the agents completed all steps, identified several overlapping elements and contradictions, and proposed solutions including Sliding Mode Control with antiswing trajectory, concluding that LLM-based multi-agent systems can model TRIZ-based group ideation.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would offer a useful demonstration that multi-agent LLM orchestration with grounded tools can follow a structured innovation methodology. The contribution is largely an architectural proof-of-concept: the system is concrete, the tool set (TRIZ features, contradiction matrix, inventive principles, RAG) is sensible, and the authors are candid about limitations such as the missing feedback loop and context-window constraints. However, the paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or reproducible code, and the evaluation is a single qualitative case study, so the significance rests on whether the proposed system generalizes to new problems beyond the one used to shape its design.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, §3.2.1, Figure 9] The evaluation is circular in a load-bearing way. Section 3.1 states that the team works 'based on the steps indicated in the case study paper', Section 3.2.1 states that each agent's role was 'defined based on case study analysis', and Figure 9 shows that the system input is the verbatim problem description from the same case study. The system is then judged in Section 5.2 by its overlap with that exact case study. This design cannot distinguish general TRIZ capability from goal-conditioning on the reference solution; a held-out problem or a pre-registered role and workflow design is needed to support the Section 6.1 claim.
  2. [§4] The assumption that GPT-4o has no knowledge of the case study because the model's data cutoff is October 2023 is not empirically verified and is not sufficient. Gantry cranes, crane sway control, and TRIZ contradictions are common engineering topics that are likely present in pretraining data in forms other than the exact 2024 paper. The 'invention' rather than 'recall' conclusion depends on this assumption; the authors should test it, for example by prompting a single GPT-4o with the problem description before revealing the case study steps, or by using a genuinely novel problem.
  3. [§5.2] The evaluation rests on two selected runs with no quantitative metrics and no baseline. The paper reports only qualitative overlaps, such as Tables 1 and 2 and the Step 6 solution match, does not state how the two runs were selected, and provides no comparison against a single LLM, a non-TRIZ prompting baseline, or independent human experts. Because the system proposes 'five other root causes that are logical but do not occur in the case study' (Section 5.2.2), a reader cannot assess whether the matches are above chance or whether the misses matter.
  4. [§6.1] The central conclusion that 'it is possible to model group work on innovative problems' is too strong for the evidence presented. The study uses one engineering problem, one system configuration, and no feedback loop (Section 6.2), and the authors note that prompt experimentation was needed to make the team follow the workflow. A single case study with acknowledged structural limitations cannot support a general claim about modeling innovative group work; the claim should be narrowed or supported by additional diverse case studies and ablations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.1] The text says 'Project Manager prompts Mechanical Engineer to identify relevant elemnts' — 'elemnts' should be 'elements'.
  2. [§5.2.2] The text contains misspellings such as 'contradicitons' and 'edented'; please proofread the manuscript.
  3. [§2.3] Figures 2 and 4 are referenced in the text but their numbering and captions are inconsistent: Figure 2 is described as showing collaboration methods while Figure 4 is described as an architecture; please re-check the cross-references.
  4. [§3.1.1] The temperature parameter is 'arbitrarily set to 0.5'; as a free parameter it should be justified or varied in a sensitivity analysis.
  5. [Table 1] Table 1 is hard to parse because bolded and non-bolded items are not clearly separated; consider a two-column layout or an explicit legend for items identified by the agents.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Agent workflow and role set are designed from the same case study used as the evaluation target, making the demonstration of TRIZ capability partly self-validating.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 (Workflow), Section 3.2.1 (Team Composition), Sections 4 and 5.2.2 (evaluation)]
    "The team works based on the steps indicated in the case study paper. ... The ideal result would be that the team produces the exact solutions with the same intermediate steps, and the final report’s content is the same as the case study’s content. Each step will be compared and evaluated with the original case study. ... Each agent’s role was defined based on case study analysis, which allowed to specify what members the team would consist of."

    The system is constructed from the very case study that later serves as its benchmark. Section 3.1 fixes the workflow to the case study's documented step sequence; Section 3.2.1 fixes the agent roster by 'case study analysis'; Section 4 supplies the verbatim problem text from the same source; Section 5.2.2 scores outputs against that source. Any success at reproducing the target's steps and solutions is therefore partly a consequence of design choices made with knowledge of the target, not an independent demonstration that the agents could invent the process on an unseen problem. The claim in Section 6.1 that group work on innovative problems can be modeled rests on this single in-sample test, with no held-out problem or ablation removing the case-derived scaffolding.

full rationale

The central circular step is the reuse of the evaluation case study (Luing et al., 2024) as the design specification for the agent workflow and team roles. Quote evidence in Section 3.1 ('The team works based on the steps indicated in the case study paper'), Section 3.2.1 ('Each agent’s role was defined based on case study analysis'), and Section 5.2.2 ('comparing the result to the original case study’s solution'). The system is neither run on a problem that did not shape its construction nor ablated to remove the case-derived scaffolding, so the paper's conclusion in Section 6.1 that TRIZ group work can be modeled by LLM agents is only weakly supported as a generalization. The additional assumption that GPT-4o could not have memorized the 2024 case study is an external-validity risk rather than a circularity: it does not affect the design-level contamination. Except for this design-level circularity, the paper is self-contained and does not rely on load-bearing self-citations: its citations to the authors' prior work are contextual. Score 5 reflects that the workflow and role definitions reduce part of the evaluation by construction, while the actual LLM output generation still contains nontrivial independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system is constructed around the specific case study, so the central evaluation relies on multiple design choices that are effectively fitted to the test problem.

free parameters (5)
  • temperature = 0.5
    Arbitrarily set as a compromise between reasonable and creative answers (Section 3.1.1); affects all agent outputs.
  • team composition = Project Manager, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Control Systems Engineer, Safety Engineer, TRIZ Specialist…
    Roles defined based on case study analysis (Section 3.2.1), not from a general taxonomy.
  • workflow steps = Six steps from the case study (Defining Engineering System, Function Analysis, CECA, Engineering Contradiction…
    The agent graph follows the case study's step sequence (Section 3.1).
  • TRIZ tool selection = TRIZ Features, Contradiction Matrix, Inventive Principles, RAG with unspecified sources
    Agent toolset chosen by authors; RAG source materials are not enumerated (Section 3.2.3).
  • number of runs = 2
    Only two runs selected for assessment, results generalized as 'majority of runs' (Section 5.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPT-4o has not been trained on the case study text because its data cutoff is October 2023
    Stated in Section 4 to ensure the model cannot recall the solution; not empirically verified.
  • domain assumption LLM agents with role prompts and tool access can effectively simulate a human innovation team
    Core assumption of the entire approach; not independently validated beyond qualitative outputs.
  • domain assumption The case study (Luing et al., 2024) is a representative and well-documented TRIZ application suitable as an evaluation benchmark
    Chosen for clarity and for postdating the model cutoff; no external validation of its quality.
  • domain assumption TRIZ methodology as described (39 parameters, Contradiction Matrix, 40 Inventive Principles) is correctly implemented through tools
    The tools return deterministic matrix outputs, but the underlying TRIZ knowledge base is not audited.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TRIZ Agents: A Multi-Agent LLM Approach for TRIZ-Based Innovation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NCUBSKYD

@misc{pith2026250618783,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TRIZ Agents: A Multi-Agent LLM Approach for TRIZ-Based Innovation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NCUBSKYD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18783}
}
read the original abstract

TRIZ, the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, is a structured, knowledge-based framework for innovation and abstracting problems to find inventive solutions. However, its application is often limited by the complexity and deep interdisciplinary knowledge required. Advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have revealed new possibilities for automating parts of this process. While previous studies have explored single LLMs in TRIZ applications, this paper introduces a multi-agent approach. We propose an LLM-based multi-agent system, called TRIZ agents, each with specialized capabilities and tool access, collaboratively solving inventive problems based on the TRIZ methodology. This multi-agent system leverages agents with various domain expertise to efficiently navigate TRIZ steps. The aim is to model and simulate an inventive process with language agents. We assess the effectiveness of this team of agents in addressing complex innovation challenges based on a selected case study in engineering. We demonstrate the potential of agent collaboration to produce diverse, inventive solutions. This research contributes to the future of AI-driven innovation, showcasing the advantages of decentralized problem-solving in complex ideation tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18783 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. TRIZ Problem Solving Methodology. Luo, 2024). Previous works include building work￾flows that strictly follow TRIZ steps and solve those steps with refined, prompt engineering strategies. Re￾sults showed a promising area of LLM usage - inno￾vative problem-solving. Studies have also suggested that agentic sys￾tems based on LLMs are significantly effective (Wu et al., 2023). With agentic GPT-3.5, it was possi￾ble to a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Agents collaboration methods (Wu et al., 2023). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. TRIZ Agents diagram, showing connections between key agents. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Architecture of LLM-based multi-agent system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: TRIZ Agents workflow steps and products. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Agent node with tool nodes. answers. It is worth mentioning that in LangChain, messages have classes, including Human or AI. In the system, messages generated by models are converted to human type so that the next model generates out￾puts as if it were conversing with …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: TRIZ Agents products. 3.2.1 Team Composition There are the following agents in the team: Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Control Systems Engineer, Safety Engineer, TRIZ Specialist, Operations Specialist, Documentation Specialist and supervisor Project Manager…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of Project Manager prompt template. Elements in {} brackets are inputs of prompt templates. The composition of the toolset for an agent de￾pends on their role in the team. All sets include a web search tool, which is their elemental way of acquiring knowledge. …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: TRIZ Agents input message taken from case study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example of messages in conversation between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  2. [2]

    and Tate, D

    Adams, C. and Tate, D. (2009). Computer-aided triz ideality and level of invention estimation using natural language processing and machine learning. In Growth and Development of Computer-Aided Innovation: Third IFIP WG 5.4 Working Conference, CAI 2009, Harbin, China, August 20-21, 2009. Proceedings , pages 27--37. Springer

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Arciszewski, T. (2016). Inventive Engineering: Knowledge and Skills for Creative Engineers . CRC Press, 1st edition

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    and Clark, M

    Atox, N. and Clark, M. (2024). Evaluating large language models through the lens of linguistic proficiency and world knowledge: A comparative study. Authorea Preprints

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Banerjee, S., Agarwal, A., and Singla, S. (2024). Llms will always hallucinate, and we need to live with this

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Brown, T. et al. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review , 86(6):84

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    and Ayala, O

    Béchard, P. and Ayala, O. M. (2024). Reducing hallucination in structured outputs via retrieval-augmented generation

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    and Rissone, P

    Cascini, G. and Rissone, P. (2004). Plastics design: integrating triz creativity and semantic knowledge portals. Journal of engineering design , 15(4):405--424

    work page 2004

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Chakrabarty, T., Padmakumar, V., Brahman, F., and Muresan, S. (2024). Creativity support in the age of large language models: An empirical study involving professional writers. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition , pages 132--155

    2024

  2. [10]

    Chen, D., Zhang, S., Zhuang, Y., Tang, S., Liu, Q., Wang, H., and Xu, M. (2024a). Improving large models with small models: Lower costs and better performance

    2024

  3. [11]

    Chen, L., Song, Y., Ding, S., Sun, L., Childs, P., and Zuo, H. (2024b). Triz-gpt: An llm-augmented method for problem-solving

    2024

  4. [12]

    Cheng, Y., Zhang, C., Zhang, Z., Meng, X., Hong, S., Li, W., Wang, Z., Wang, Z., Yin, F., Zhao, J., and He, X. (2024). Exploring large language model based intelligent agents: Definitions, methods, and prospects

    2024

  5. [13]

    and Chudziak, J

    Choinski, M. and Chudziak, J. A. (2009). Ontological learning assistant for knowledge discovery and data mining. In 2009 International Multiconference on Computer Science and Information Technology , pages 147--155

    2009

  6. [14]

    Chudziak, J. A. and Cinkusz, K. (2024). Towards llm-augmented multiagent systems for agile software engineering. In The 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2024) , Sacramento, CA, USA

    2024

  7. [15]

    A., and Niewiadomska-Szynkiewicz, E

    Cinkusz, K., Chudziak, J. A., and Niewiadomska-Szynkiewicz, E. (2025). Cognitive agents powered by large language models for agile software project management. Electronics , 14(1)

    2025

  8. [16]

    and Hentschel, C

    Czinki, A. and Hentschel, C. (2016). Solving complex problems and triz. Procedia Cirp , 39:27--32

    2016

  9. [17]

    S., and Jurdak, R

    Dorri, A., Kanhere, S. S., and Jurdak, R. (2018). Multi-agent systems: A survey. Ieee Access , 6:28573--28593

    2018

  10. [18]

    Hall, S., Mollan, C., Pandey, V., and Mourelatos, Z. (2022). Triz mapping and novelty detection of engineering design patents using machine learning. In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference , volume 8626...

    2022

  11. [19]

    H \"a ndler, T. (2023). A taxonomy for autonomous llm-powered multi-agent architectures. In KMIS , pages 85--98

    2023

  12. [20]

    Hatalis, K., Christou, D., Myers, J., Jones, S., Lambert, K., Amos-Binks, A., Dannenhauer, Z., and Dannenhauer, D. (2023). Memory matters: The need to improve long-term memory in llm-agents. In Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series , volume 2, pages 277--280

    2023

  13. [21]

    Hu, S., Lu, C., and Clune, J. (2024). Automated design of agentic systems

    2024

  14. [22]

    M., Probert, D., and Phaal, R

    Ilevbare, I. M., Probert, D., and Phaal, R. (2013). A review of triz, and its benefits and challenges in practice. Technovation , 33(2-3):30--37

    2013

  15. [23]

    and Luo, J

    Jiang, S. and Luo, J. (2024). Autotriz: Artificial ideation with triz and large language models

    2024

  16. [24]

    T., Shimazu, A., and Nakajima, T

    Kone, M. T., Shimazu, A., and Nakajima, T. (2000). The state of the art in agent communication languages. Knowledge and Information Systems , 2:259--284

    2000

  17. [25]

    and Chudziak, J

    Kostka, A. and Chudziak, J. A. (2024). Synergizing logical reasoning, long-term memory, and collaborative intelligence in multi-agent llm systems. In Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC 38) , Tokyo, Japan. In press

    2024

  18. [26]

    LangGraph

    LangGraph (2023). LangGraph . https://langchain-ai.github.io/langgraph/. Accessed: 10-01-2025

    2023

  19. [27]

    T., He, C., and Shen, L

    Loh, H. T., He, C., and Shen, L. (2006). Automatic classification of patent documents for triz users. World Patent Information , 28(1):6--13

    2006

  20. [28]

    Luing, N. S. S., Toh, G. G., and Chau, G. H. (2024). Application of triz for gantry crane improvement. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series , volume 2772, page 012004. IOP Publishing

    2024

  21. [29]

    Mahto, D. (2013). Concepts, tools and techniques of problem solving through triz: A review. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology , 2(7)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Minaee, S., Mikolov, T., Nikzad, N., Chenaghlu, M., Socher, R., Amatriain, X., and Gao, J. (2024). Large language models: A survey

    2024

  23. [31]

    Moehrle, M. G. (2005). What is triz? from conceptual basics to a framework for research. Creativity and innovation management , 14(1):3--13

    2005

  24. [32]

    and AbouRizk, S

    Nassar, N. and AbouRizk, S. (2016). Introduction to techniques for resolving project performance contradictions. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , 142(8):04016027

    2016

  25. [33]

    Oppenlaender, J. (2022). The creativity of text-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the 25th international academic mindtrek conference , pages 192--202

    2022

  26. [34]

    Orloff, M. A. (2006). TRIZ . Springer

    2006

  27. [35]

    Orr \`u , G., Piarulli, A., Conversano, C., and Gemignani, A. (2023). Human-like problem-solving abilities in large language models using chatgpt. Frontiers in artificial intelligence , 6:1199350

    2023

  28. [36]

    M., Harman, M., and Wang, M

    Ouyang, S., Zhang, J. M., Harman, M., and Wang, M. (2024). An empirical study of the non-determinism of chatgpt in code generation. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

    2024

  29. [37]

    S., O'Brien, J

    Park, J. S., O'Brien, J. C., Cai, C. J., Morris, M. R., Liang, P., and Bernstein, M. S. (2023). Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior

    2023

  30. [38]

    and Sonnenberg, H

    Sehested, C. and Sonnenberg, H. (2010). Lean innovation: a fast path from knowledge to value . Springer Science & Business Media

    2010

  31. [39]

    Serugendo, G. D. M., Gleizes, M.-P., and Karageorgos, A. (2005). Self-organization in multi-agent systems. The Knowledge engineering review , 20(2):165--189

    2005

  32. [40]

    R., Yao, S., Narasimhan, K., and Griffiths, T

    Sumers, T. R., Yao, S., Narasimhan, K., and Griffiths, T. L. (2024). Cognitive architectures for language agents

    2024

  33. [41]

    Sun, R. (2024). Can a cognitive architecture fundamentally enhance llms? or vice versa? arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10444

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., and Porter, B. (2008). Handbook of knowledge representation . Elsevier

    2008

  35. [43]

    A., and Niewiadomska-Szynkiewicz, E

    Wawer, M., Chudziak, J. A., and Niewiadomska-Szynkiewicz, E. (2024). Large language models and the elliott wave principle: A multi-agent deep learning approach to big data analysis in financial markets. Applied Sciences , 14(24)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q., and Zhou, D. (2023). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    2023

  37. [45]

    H., White, R

    Wu, Q., Bansal, G., Zhang, J., Wu, Y., Li, B., Zhu, E., Jiang, L., Zhang, X., Zhang, S., Liu, J., Awadallah, A. H., White, R. W., Burger, D., and Wang, C. (2023). Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation

    2023

  38. [46]

    L., and Ritter, F

    Wu, S., Oltramari, A., Francis, J., Giles, C. L., and Ritter, F. E. (2024). Cognitive llms: Toward human-like artificial intelligence by integrating cognitive architectures and large language models for manufacturing decision-making. Neurosymbolic Artificial Intelligence

    2024

  39. [47]

    Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., and Cao, Y. (2023). React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models

    2023

  40. [48]

    Yuan, R., Lin, H., Wang, Y., Tian, Z., Wu, S., Shen, T., Zhang, G., Wu, Y., Liu, C., Zhou, Z., Ma, Z., Xue, L., Wang, Z., Liu, Q., Zheng, T., Li, Y., Ma, Y., Liang, Y., Chi, X., Liu, R., Wang, Z., Li, P., Wu, J., Lin, C., Liu, Q., Jiang, T., Huang, W., Chen, W., Benetos, E., F...

    2024

  41. [49]

    Y., Hartmann, B., and Yang, Q

    Zamfirescu-Pereira, J., Wong, R. Y., Hartmann, B., and Yang, Q. (2023). Why johnny can’t prompt: how non-ai experts try (and fail) to design llm prompts. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages 1--21

    2023

  42. [50]

    S., and Hsu, D

    Zhao, Z., Lee, W. S., and Hsu, D. (2023). Large language models as commonsense knowledge for large-scale task planning. In Oh, A., Naumann, T., Globerson, A., Saenko, K., Hardt, M., and Levine, S., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 36, pages 3...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.