pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.25735 · v1 · pith:AOZUE6BFnew · submitted 2026-05-25 · 💻 cs.AI

A Deep Dive into Axiomatic Design -- Part I: Problem Formulation

Aydin Homay This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 21:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords axiomatic designproblem formulationfunctional requirementsdesign methodologyNam P. Suhcustomer needsindependence axiomlarge language models
0
0 comments X

The pith

First-level functional requirements in axiomatic design should not legitimately vary across designers given identical customer needs and constraints.

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

The paper establishes that translating customer needs into a minimum set of independent first-level functional requirements is the most critical yet frequently mishandled step in axiomatic design. It argues that these requirements are uniquely determined by the needs and constraints, so competent designers should arrive at the same set without legitimate differences. Grounded in Suh's three books, the work identifies recurring pitfalls that produce dependent or incomplete requirements and lead to design failure. It supplies practical guidance for formulating well-posed first-level FRs and briefly examines the limited role large language models can play at this stage.

Core claim

Problem formulation that converts customer needs and constraints into a minimum set of independent first-level FRs is the most critical step in axiomatic design. First-level FRs are defined such that they should not legitimately vary across designers for the same inputs, because they follow directly from the needs while satisfying the independence axiom. Common difficulties include introducing unnecessary dependencies, misidentifying the minimum set, or confusing FRs with design parameters, all of which produce downstream failures. The paper offers concrete guidance drawn from Suh's texts to avoid these errors and notes that large language models can assist with information gathering but can

What carries the argument

The first-level functional requirements (FRs): the minimum independent set of functions that satisfy given customer needs and constraints, derived without designer-specific variation.

If this is right

  • Designers facing identical needs converge on the same first-level FRs, reducing subjectivity at the problem-formulation stage.
  • Avoiding common pitfalls in FR formulation prevents the creation of coupled or over-specified designs that fail later.
  • Large language models can retrieve and organize information but cannot replace the human judgment required to establish the minimum independent FR set.
  • Well-posed first-level FRs serve as a stable foundation for subsequent decomposition and design-parameter selection.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If first-level FRs are fixed by needs alone, then axiomatic design could serve as a more objective benchmark for evaluating AI-generated design proposals.
  • The emphasis on independence at the first level may extend to other design theories that begin with requirement translation.
  • Testing the claim would require controlled experiments in which multiple designers receive identical need statements and compare their resulting FR sets.

Load-bearing premise

The principles and definitions drawn from Suh's three books apply universally and without modification to all design contexts, including those involving large language models.

What would settle it

Two designers independently producing different minimal independent first-level FR sets for the exact same customer needs and constraints, both satisfying the independence axiom, would falsify the claim that such FRs should not legitimately vary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.25735 by Aydin Homay.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mapping between axiomatic design domains (“what” to “how”). [9, pp. 11] Throughout the design process, the designer must satisfy two design axioms. The Independence Axiom ensures that the design is either uncoupled or decoupled , and the Information Axiom chooses the best design (i.e., the design with the highest probability of success) among candidate designs (i.e., sets of DPs) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Emergence of essential FRs from KW and their decomposition into dervied (i.e., lower-level) FRs via zigzagging (knowledge expansion from KW ∪ KH to KD ∪ Csys) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Problem formulation translating customer needs and constraints into a minimum set of independent first-level functional requirements, is arguably the most critical step in every design framework, including axiomatic design yet it is frequently misunderstood or underestimated in practice. This paper focuses exclusively on problem formulation in axiomatic design it clarifies what first-level FRs are (and are not), explains why they should not legitimately vary across designers given the same needs and constraints, and highlights intrinsic difficulties and recurring pitfalls that lead to design failure. The discussion is grounded primarily in Nam P.Suh's three books. The Principles of Design, Axiomatic Design Advances and Applications, and Complexity Theory, and it offers practical guidance to help designers formulate well-posed first-level FRs. Finally, the paper briefly revisits problem formulation in the era of large language models and discusses what such tools can (and cannot) contribute at the first level.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript provides a conceptual clarification of problem formulation in axiomatic design, with emphasis on translating customer needs and constraints into a minimum set of independent first-level functional requirements (FRs). It argues, drawing primarily from Suh's three cited books, that these first-level FRs are uniquely fixed by the given needs and constraints and therefore should not legitimately vary across designers; it identifies intrinsic difficulties and pitfalls, offers practical guidance for formulating well-posed FRs, and briefly revisits the topic in the context of large language models.

Significance. If the interpretive clarification holds, the work could help standardize early-stage design practice and reduce downstream failures by making explicit the definitional constraints on first-level FRs. The direct grounding in Suh's primary texts and the provision of practical guidance constitute modest strengths for an educational or methodological contribution; the brief LLM discussion adds limited timeliness but introduces no new claims.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract asserts that first-level FRs 'should not legitimately vary across designers' yet provides no independent argument or counter-example analysis beyond the adopted definitions; this point should be explicitly framed as a direct consequence of Suh's framework rather than an additional result.
  2. The manuscript states it 'focuses exclusively on problem formulation' but then includes a section on large language models; the relationship of the LLM discussion to the exclusive focus should be clarified in the introduction or abstract.
  3. Specific citations or page references to the three Suh books are not supplied for the key definitions and principles invoked; adding such references would strengthen traceability of the clarifications.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript and for recommending minor revision. The work focuses on clarifying the formulation of first-level functional requirements in axiomatic design, drawing directly from Suh's primary texts, and we are pleased that the grounding, practical guidance, and timeliness of the LLM discussion are noted as strengths.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper grounds all claims about first-level FRs and their non-variation in Nam P. Suh's three independent books as external references. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-citations by the present author appear. The non-variation statement follows directly from the adopted external definitions rather than any internal reduction or self-referential construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks with no load-bearing steps that collapse to the paper's own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on the established framework of axiomatic design from Suh's books as its foundation; no new free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Principles and definitions of first-level functional requirements as presented in Nam P.S. Suh's books (The Principles of Design, Axiomatic Design Advances and Applications, Complexity Theory)
    The discussion is grounded primarily in these three books.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5674 in / 1138 out tokens · 23158 ms · 2026-06-29T21:23:25.206361+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Addison-Wesley (2007)

    Booch, G., Maksimchuk, R.A., Engle, M.W., Young, B.J., Connallen, J., Hous- ton, K.A.: Object-oriented analysis and design with applications, third edition. Addison-Wesley (2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt (2007)

    Bossel, H.: Systems and Models: Complexity, Dynamics, Evolution, Sustainability. Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt (2007)

    2007

  3. [3]

    Igor Douven: Abduction (2025), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2025/ entries/abduction/

    2025

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Software engineering

    Jackson, M.: The world and the machine. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Software engineering. pp. 283–292. ACM Press, Seattle, Washington, United States (1995). https://doi.org/10.1145/225014.225041, http://portal.acm. org/citation.cfm?doid=225014.225041

    work page doi:10.1145/225014.225041 1995

  5. [5]

    John Von Neumann, Oskar Morgenstern: Theory of Games and Economic Be- haviour. Tech. rep., Princeton University Press (1944)

    1944

  6. [6]

    (eds.): Creativity and morality

    Kapoor, H., Kaufman, J.C. (eds.): Creativity and morality. Explorations in cre- ativity research, Academic Press, London San Diego Cambridge Oxford (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    ACM Transactions on Intelligent Sys- tems and Technology16(6), 1–52 (Dec 2025)

    Lee, S., Sim, W., Shin, D., Seo, W., Park, J., Lee, S., Hwang, S., Kim, S., Kim, S.: Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models: In-Depth Analysis on the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Sys- tems and Technology16(6), 1–52 (Dec 2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3712701, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3712701

    work page doi:10.1145/3712701 2025

  8. [8]

    In: Suh, N.P., Cavique, M., Foley, J.T

    Liu, A.: Problem Definition. In: Suh, N.P., Cavique, M., Foley, J.T. (eds.) Design Engineering and Science, pp. 167–189. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49232-8_5, https://link.springer.com/ 10.1007/978-3-030-49232-8_5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-49232-8_5 2021

  9. [9]

    Oxford University Press (2001)

    Nam Pay Suh: Axiomatic Design Advances and Applications. Oxford University Press (2001)

    2001

  10. [10]

    Oxford University Press (2005)

    Nam Pay Suh: Complexity: Theory and Applications. Oxford University Press (2005)

    2005

  11. [11]

    International Journal of Educational Research27(1), 37–48 (1997)

    Ohlsson, S., Lehtinen, E.: Abstraction and the acquisition of complex ideas. International Journal of Educational Research27(1), 37–48 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(97)88442-X, https://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S088303559788442X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0883-0355(97)88442-x 1997

  12. [12]

    Cognitive Science Quarterly1(3), 243–277 (2001), https://psycnet.apa

    Ohlsson, S., Regan, S.: A function for abstract ideas in conceptual discovery and learning. Cognitive Science Quarterly1(3), 243–277 (2001), https://psycnet.apa. org/record/2002-18786-002 14 Aydin Homay

    2001

  13. [13]

    ACM Computing Surveys54(5), 1–35 (Jun 2022)

    Pateria, S., Subagdja, B., Tan, A.h., Quek, C.: Hierarchical Reinforcement Learn- ing: A Comprehensive Survey. ACM Computing Surveys54(5), 1–35 (Jun 2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3453160, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3453160

    work page doi:10.1145/3453160 2022

  14. [14]

    IEEE Access9, 156831–156845 (2021)

    Pourabbas, E., Parretti, C., Rolli, F., Pecoraro, F.: Entropy-Based Assess- ment of Nonfunctional Requirements in Axiomatic Design. IEEE Access9, 156831–156845 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3128686, https:// ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9617456/

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2021.3128686 2021

  15. [15]

    In: Creativity and Morality, pp

    Qin, X., Dong, X., Li, W., Chen, C., Wang, M.: The relationship be- tween creativity and (un)ethical behavior: a literature review and fu- ture directions. In: Creativity and Morality, pp. 257–282. Elsevier (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85667-6.00012-8, https://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/B9780323856676000128

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-85667-6.00012-8 2023

  16. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, vol

    Regan,S.,Ohlsson,S.:TheImpactofAbstractIdeasonDiscoveryandComprehen- sion in Scientific Domains. In: Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, vol. 21, pp. 590–594. Psychology Press, New York, 1 edn. (1991). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603494-108, https://www. taylorfrancis.com/books/9781410603494/chapters/10.4...

    work page doi:10.4324/9781410603494-108 1991

  17. [17]

    Oxford University Press, New York (1990), https://archive.org/details/principlesofdesi0000suhn

    Suh, N.P.: The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press, New York (1990), https://archive.org/details/principlesofdesi0000suhn

    1990

  18. [19]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49232- 8_2

    Suh,N.P.:WhatIsDesign?In:DesignEngineeringandScience,pp.35–69.Springer International Publishing, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49232- 8_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-49232- 2021

  19. [20]

    Springer International Publishing (Jan 2021)

    Suh, N.P., Cavique, M., Timothy, J.: Design Engineering and Science. Springer International Publishing (Jan 2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49232-8, publication Title: Design Engineering and Science

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-49232-8 2021

  20. [21]

    In: Taylor, D.L., Stauffer, L.A

    Takeda, H., Tomiyama, T., Yoshikawa, H.: A Logical and Computable Framework for Reasoning in Design. In: Taylor, D.L., Stauffer, L.A. (eds.) Design Theory and Methodology, vol. 42, pp. 167–174. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (1992)

    1992

  21. [22]

    Tom Zahavy: LLMs can’t jump. Tech. rep., Google DeepMind (Jan 2026), https: //philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/28024

    2026