Agent-Centric Projection of Prompting Techniques and Implications for Synthetic Training Data for Large Language Models

Dhruv Dhamani; Mary Lou Maher

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Agent-Centric Projection of Prompting Techniques and Implications for Synthetic Training Data for Large Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes that every prompting technique falls into a linear or non-linear context class, and that non-linear contexts project onto multi-agent systems, yielding three conjectures about transferable results and synthetic training…

desk verdict A clearly written position paper that introduces a useful linear/non-linear context vocabulary, but its central Conjecture 1 is unfalsifiable as stated because the branch-to-agent mapping is stipulated, not tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07815 v1 pith:VVZ66YJL submitted 2025-01-14 cs.AI cs.CLcs.MA

Dhruv Dhamani , Mary Lou Maher This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.MA

keywords largelanguagemodelspromptingtechniquesmulti-agentLLMsystemslinearcontextnon-linearagent-centricprojectionsynthetictrainingdatapromptengineering

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 position paper argues that every prompting technique for large language models can be sorted into one of two classes: linear contexts, a single continuous conversation, and non-linear contexts, where the message flow branches into multiple paths. It then makes an agent-centric projection: in a non-linear context, each continuous branch can be viewed as a separate agent, so the prompting technique becomes a multi-agent system. From that projection the authors derive three conjectures: results from non-linear prompting can predict results from equivalent multi-agent systems; multi-agent architectures can be replicated by single-LLM prompting that simulates the same interaction; and the linear transcripts of such interactions can serve as synthetic training data. The point of the framework is to let findings from prompting research and multi-agent research flow in both directions, and to open a principled route to generating training data that improves reasoning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the agent-centric projection, defined by treating each continuous linear sequence of messages $M_n = \{C_n, R_n\}$ in a non-linear context as having occurred with a different agent. A non-linear prompting technique like Branch-Solve-Merge, which branches into parallel reflections and then merges them, is redrawn as a multi-agent system in which each branch is a minimal task-oriented LLM system and the algorithmic transformations between branches become tools or message-passing edges. The same projection works in reverse: a multi-agent dialogue can be flattened into a linear prompt that instructs one LLM to produce a turn-by-turn transcript of several personas. This projection is what carries the three conjectures, because it turns structural similarity of message flow into a prediction of behavioral similarity.

What would settle it

Take a benchmark task where multi-agent systems are known to outperform single-LLM prompting, construct the equivalent non-linear prompting technique by the projection, and compare the two under identical model and compute budgets; if the multi-agent version reliably beats the projected prompting version on the same task, Conjecture 1's claim that non-linear prompting results predict multi-agent results is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the linear/non-linear context distinction is exhaustive: any task-oriented LLM system using an LLM has at least one continuous stream of messages, and if exactly one stream contains all messages in chronological order the context is linear, while any branching or multi-path structure is non-linear. Linear contexts can be modeled as a two-agent system (the human and the LLM), and non-linear contexts can be projected onto multi-agent systems by declaring each continuous branch a distinct agent. The paper also draws a sharp distinction between prompt engineering, which changes the prompt without changing the task, and instruction engineering, which changes the task to an equivalent one with the same deliverable. On this basis it states Conjecture 1 (non-linear prompting results predict equivalent multi-agent results), Conjecture 2 (multi-agent performance gains can be at least partially replicated by single-LLM prompting that simulates equivalent interaction patterns), and Conjecture 3 (synthetic 'self-collaboration' transcripts, whether from non-linear prompting or multi-agent collaboration, improve LLM performance on similar tasks when used as training data).

Load-bearing premise

The projection assumes that labeling each continuous message branch as a separate agent captures something behaviorally real about multi-agent systems; if branch labels are just notation, the conjectures that transfer results between prompting and multi-agent systems lose their footing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Findings from multi-agent research can be imported into single-LLM prompting: for example, a process-supervision-agent result would translate into an added supervision branch in a Branch-Solve-Merge-style prompt.
Multi-agent architectures can be compressed into single-LLM prompts that simulate the same dialogue, so performance gains may be achievable without running multiple model instances.
Non-linear prompting traces, once flattened into linear transcripts, become usable synthetic training data for LLMs.
Real-world task traces, such as repository commits, issue comments, and pull requests, can be augmented with fabricated collaborator dialogue to generate training data.
The linear/non-linear dichotomy gives a common vocabulary for comparing prompting techniques and multi-agent systems, enabling systematic cross-pollination between the two research areas.

Reading between the lines

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

If the projection holds, performance disparities between a prompting technique and its agentified counterpart become a direct measurement of what separate-agent communication adds, turning every existing prompting benchmark into a multi-agent benchmark.
The framework suggests a cheap test: relabeling the branches of Branch-Solve-Merge as agents should leave task performance approximately unchanged, a prediction that can be checked without any new training.
The synthetic-data conjecture points to a practical recipe: collect successful non-linear traces, serialize them as transcripts, and train on them alongside real-world task artifacts; existing results on serialized search trajectories are an early existence proof that this recipe generalizes to any branching technique.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a worthwhile position paper. The linear vs non-linear context distinction is a genuinely useful way to group prompting techniques, and the agent-centric projection gives researchers a shared vocabulary for talking about single-LLM and multi-agent systems. The paper is honest that its three central statements are conjectures, and it cites the right prior work (Branch-Solve-Merge, Solo Performance Prompting, Self-Collaboration, Stream of Search). The synthetic-data recipe—serialize non-linear reasoning traces into linear text—is concrete and already partially validated by Stream of Search, which supports Conjecture 3.

The soft spots are real but fixable. The branch-to-agent mapping in §3.2 is asserted by definition: "each continuous sequence of messages Mn can be considered to have occurred with a different agent." That is a perspective, not a finding. Conjecture 1 then says results from non-linear prompting can predict results from multi-agent systems "designed to replicate the same behavior," but "equivalent" is never operationally defined. Any observed divergence can be dismissed as a non-equivalent implementation, which makes the conjecture unfalsifiable as stated. The paper's own Figure 5 concedes the multi-agent version "may prove to be more resilient," which highlights the divergence rather than closing it. This is the load-bearing weakness, and it is the main thing a serious referee would want tightened.

Another minor issue: the conclusions say "we demonstrate approaches" when the paper actually proposes and stipulates. The abstract correctly says "we propose three conjectures," so the conclusions overclaim. A careful edit would fix this.

For a position paper, the argument is coherent and not circular—the conjectures make predictions beyond the definitions. But there are no experiments, and the existing evidence supports Conjectures 2 and 3 much more than Conjecture 1. I would send this to peer review: the framing is novel enough to warrant discussion, and the conjectures are worth testing. The revision should focus on defining equivalence operationally and softening the "demonstrate" language.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This position paper proposes a conceptual framework to relate prompting techniques for large language models (LLMs) to multi-agent LLM systems. The authors define a linear context as a single continuous sequence of messages and a non-linear context as a branching set of message sequences, and they argue that every prompting technique and every task-oriented LLM system falls into exactly one of these two categories (Section 3.1). They then introduce an agent-centric projection in which each continuous branch of a non-linear context is treated as a distinct agent, which leads to three conjectures: (1) results from non-linear prompting techniques can predict results from equivalent multi-agent systems, (2) multi-agent architectures can be at least partially replicated by single-LLM prompting techniques that simulate the interaction in a linear context, and (3) synthetic 'self-collaboration' transcripts, derived from either non-linear prompting or multi-agent interaction, can serve as training data to improve LLM performance. The paper also distinguishes prompt engineering from instruction engineering and proposes two approaches for generating synthetic training data.

Significance. If the framework is accepted, it provides a useful vocabulary for comparing prompting techniques and multi-agent systems, and the suggested cross-pollination of findings between the two areas is a plausible and interesting research direction. The paper is transparent about the conjectural nature of its central statements, and the classification builds on a clear minimal-system definition in Section 2.1. The authors also cite relevant prior work, including Solo Performance Prompting and Self-Collaboration, and the synthetic-data proposals are concrete. However, the significance of the framework depends on whether Conjecture 1 can be given a testable meaning; as written, the transfer claim rests on a definitional stipulation rather than on an operational equivalence criterion, and the paper's own acknowledgement of divergent robustness in Figure 5 undercuts the unqualified version of the conjecture.

major comments (3)

[3.2] The central transfer claim in Conjecture 1 is unfalsifiable as stated because the phrase 'designed to replicate the same behavior' is never operationally defined. The mapping from message branches to agents is stipulated ('each continuous sequence of messages Mn can be considered to have occurred with a different agent'), so any divergence in outcomes between a non-linear prompting technique and a multi-agent system can be attributed to a failure of equivalence rather than counted as evidence against the conjecture. The authors should provide a precise equivalence criterion, such as identical message-flow graphs with identical content or matched output distributions on a fixed benchmark, or explicitly restrict the conjecture to a claim of structural analogy.
[3.2, Figure 5] The text accompanying Figure 5 concedes that the multi-agent version 'may prove to be more resilient to unexpected circumstances.' This is a direct admission that the multi-agent projection can behave differently from the prompting technique, which contradicts the unqualified prediction of Conjecture 1. The authors need to specify the scope of the predicted transfer (for example, only on expected inputs or on average across a defined task distribution) and, ideally, propose a concrete experimental comparison, such as running Branch-Solve-Merge and a multi-agent replication on the same benchmark, to make the conjecture testable.
[3.1-3.2] The classification into linear and non-linear contexts, and the subsequent projection to agents, rely on an informal notion of a 'continuous sequence of messages' and of a 'branch.' For techniques with complex control flow, such as Tree of Thoughts or Graph of Thoughts, it is not clear how the message set M is precisely partitioned into branches, which makes the projection difficult to reproduce or apply to new techniques. A formal definition of a branch and a specification of how branch labels are assigned would strengthen the framework and make the agent-centric projection well-defined.

minor comments (5)

[2.2] The sentence 'We restrict the addition of relevant knowledge/information to LLM augmentation to avoid an overlap' is vague; please elaborate on what counts as LLM augmentation and why knowledge addition is excluded from prompt engineering.
[4.2] The first sentence of the final paragraph in Section 4.2 is a sentence fragment ('By establishing the fundamental distinction...'); it should be merged with the following sentence or rewritten.
[3.2] The paper would benefit from a table summarizing which prompting techniques are classified as linear or non-linear, as the text currently lists them but a tabular summary would aid readability and comparison.
[3.3] The GitHub software-project example is imaginative, but the claim that the resulting 'theater play script' would be effective training data is entirely speculative; consider adding a pointer to any existing evidence on training from commit histories or issue discussions, or label the example explicitly as an open question.
[References] A few in-text citations, such as 'Wang et al., 2024' in Section 3.2, are used without a full citation at first mention; please ensure consistent citation formatting throughout.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Conjecture 1's predicted transfer is true by the definitional stipulation that non-linear-context branches are agents.

self definitional [§3.2 (Agent-Centric Projection), Conjecture 1]
"Research on techniques for reliable, task-oriented text generation that involves non-linear context can be modeled to be a kind of multi-agent system, where each “branch” of conversation M can be considered to have occurred with a different agent. ... Conjecture 1. Results from prompting techniques involving non-linear context can predict similar results from multi-agent systems designed to replicate the same behavior ."

The paper's central mapping is stipulated, not established: a 'non-linear context' branch is declared to be an agent ('each branch ... can be considered to have occurred with a different agent'). Conjecture 1 then 'predicts' that results transfer to multi-agent systems 'designed to replicate the same behavior.' But if the multi-agent system is defined as the same behavior under a relabeling, the transfer is true by construction; it is not an empirical prediction. The paper's own Figure 5 concedes the designed system 'may prove to be more resilient,' so 'equivalent' is doing no work beyond the initial stipulation. Any divergence can be dismissed as a failure to 'replicate the same behavior,' making the conjecture unfalsifiable and the claimed 'deep connection' a definitional relabeling.

full rationale

The paper's agent-centric projection is established by stipulation, not by evidence: 'each continuous sequence of messages Mn can be considered to have occurred with a different agent.' Conjecture 1 then asserts that non-linear-prompting results 'can predict similar results from multi-agent systems designed to replicate the same behavior.' Since 'replicate the same behavior' is defined by the projection, the prediction is analytic: any system that replicates the behavior will, by definition, produce similar results. The paper's Figure 5 caveat ('may prove to be more resilient') concedes that the designed multi-agent system need not behave identically, so the equivalence is not tested behaviorally. This affects only Conjecture 1; Conjectures 2 and 3 rest on independent external results (Solo Performance Prompting, Self-Collaboration, Stream of Search), and there are no fitted parameters or self-citations. The circularity is real but partial, hence score 6 rather than 8 or 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper is conceptual and introduces no fitted parameters. Its load-bearing assumptions are definitional: the exhaustive linear/non-linear dichotomy, the branch-to-agent projection, the general feasibility of linear simulation of multi-agent patterns, and the training value of serialized collaboration transcripts. The invented entities are the two new context categories, both lacking independent falsifiable evidence.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption All task-oriented LLM systems and prompting techniques have either linear or non-linear context.
Defined in §3.1 and used as the basis of the entire framework; the paper asserts exhaustiveness by construction.
ad hoc to paper Each continuous sequence of messages in a non-linear context can be treated as a distinct agent.
The central projection postulate in §3.2; no independent justification beyond the paper's labeling choice.
domain assumption A multi-agent interaction pattern can be simulated in a single linear context using natural language.
Supports Conjecture 2 in §3.2; cited prior work shows instances, but the paper assumes the general capability.
domain assumption Self-collaboration transcripts, once serialized, are effective training data.
Underlies Conjecture 3 and the synthetic data proposal in §3.3; supported only by one cited example (Gandhi et al. 2024).

invented entities (2)

Linear context
purpose: Classification category for prompts or systems with one continuous message sequence.
Introduced in §3.1 as a novel concept; there is no falsifiable handle outside the framework that confirms this construct is the right level of abstraction.
Non-linear context
purpose: Classification category for prompts or systems with branching message paths; motivates the agent-centric projection.
Introduced in §3.1; its value is asserted through examples, not measured.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Agent-Centric Projection of Prompting Techniques and Implications for Synthetic Training Data for Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VVZ66YJL

@misc{pith2026250107815,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Agent-Centric Projection of Prompting Techniques and Implications for Synthetic Training Data for Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VVZ66YJL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07815}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advances in prompting techniques and multi-agent systems for Large Language Models (LLMs) have produced increasingly complex approaches. However, we lack a framework for characterizing and comparing prompting techniques or understanding their relationship to multi-agent LLM systems. This position paper introduces and explains the concepts of linear contexts (a single, continuous sequence of interactions) and non-linear contexts (branching or multi-path) in LLM systems. These concepts enable the development of an agent-centric projection of prompting techniques, a framework that can reveal deep connections between prompting strategies and multi-agent systems. We propose three conjectures based on this framework: (1) results from non-linear prompting techniques can predict outcomes in equivalent multi-agent systems, (2) multi-agent system architectures can be replicated through single-LLM prompting techniques that simulate equivalent interaction patterns, and (3) these equivalences suggest novel approaches for generating synthetic training data. We argue that this perspective enables systematic cross-pollination of research findings between prompting and multi-agent domains, while providing new directions for improving both the design and training of future LLM systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07815 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** A bare-bones LLM system. For systems oriented towards solving even moderately complex tasks, context management becomes quickly cumbersome. For example, in Saha et al., 2023, the authors describe a system in which m branches are created from a LLM response to a 2The Generative AI system description in Feuerriegel et al., 2023 includes any UI components as part of the Generative AI system, and we use a modified def… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** A minimal LLM system that includes a context [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** An example of a prompting technique with non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The prompting technique from Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A more realistic projection of the prompting tech [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

Niewiadomski, H., Nyczyk, P., and Hoefler, T. (2023). Graph of Thoughts: Solving Elaborate Problems with Large Language Models. arXiv:2308.09687 [cs]

arXiv 2023
[2]

Do large language models resemble humans in language use?

Cai, Z. G., Haslett, D. A., Duan, X., Wang, S., and Picker- ing, M. J. (2023). Does ChatGPT resemble humans in language use? arXiv:2303.08014 [cs]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[3]

Chen, B., Zhang, Z., Langren’e, N., and Zhu, S. (2023). Unleashing the potential of prompt engineering in Large Language Models: a comprehensive review. arXiv.org

work page 2023
[4]

Dong, Y ., Jiang, X., Jin, Z., and Li, G. (2024). Self- Collaboration Code Generation via ChatGPT. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 33(7):189:1–189:38

work page 2024
[5]

Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., and Zschech, P. (2023). Generative AI. Business & Information Systems Engineering. arXiv:2309.07930 [cs]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[6]

Sharma, A., and Goodman, N. D. (2024). Stream of Search (SoS): Learning to Search in Language. arXiv:2404.03683

arXiv 2024
[7]

Hendel, R., Geva, M., and Globerson, A. (2023). In-Context Learning Creates Task Vectors. arXiv:2310.15916 [cs]

arXiv 2023
[8]

Zhou, L., Ran, C., Xiao, L., Wu, C., and Schmidhuber, J. (2023). MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi- Agent Collaborative Framework. arXiv:2308.00352 [cs]

arXiv 2023

Show all 28 references

[9]

Josifoski, M., Sakota, M., Peyrard, M., and West, R. (2023). Exploiting Asymmetry for Synthetic Training Data Generation: SynthIE and the Case of Information Ex- traction. arXiv:2303.04132

2023 arXiv
[10]

S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y ., and Iwasawa, Y

Kojima, T., Gu, S. S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y ., and Iwasawa, Y . (2023). Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Rea- soners. arXiv:2205.11916 [cs]

2023 arXiv
[11]

Luo, F., Yang, Q., and Xie, X. (2023). Large Lan- guage Models Understand and Can be Enhanced by Emotional Stimuli. arXiv:2307.11760 [cs]

2023 arXiv
[12]

Yazdanbakhsh, A., and Clark, P. (2023). Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback. arXiv.org

2023
[13]

Ning, X., Lin, Z., Zhou, Z., Wang, Z., Yang, H., and Wang, Y . (2023). Skeleton-of-Thought: Large Language Models Can Do Parallel Decoding. arXiv:2307.15337 [cs]

2023 arXiv
[14]

Qin, T., Usuyama, N., White, C., and Horvitz, E. (2023). Can Generalist Foundation Models Out- compete Special-Purpose Tuning? Case Study in Medicine. arXiv:2311.16452 [cs]. OpenAI (2024). Learning to Reason with LLMs

2023 arXiv
[15]

Bernstein, M. S. (2023). Generative Agents: Interac- tive Simulacra of Human Behavior. arXiv.org

2023
[16]

Sutskever, I. (2019). Language Models are Unsuper- vised Multitask Learners

2019
[17]

Saha, S., Levy, O., Celikyilmaz, A., Bansal, M., Weston, J., and Li, X. (2023). Branch-Solve-Merge Improves Large Language Model Evaluation and Generation. arXiv:2310.15123 [cs]

2023 arXiv
[18]

Savage, T., Nayak, A., Gallo, R., Rangan, E., and Chen, J. H. (2023). Diagnostic Reasoning Prompts Reveal the Potential for Large Language Model Interpretabil- ity in Medicine. arXiv:2308.06834 [cs]

2023 arXiv
[19]

Howard, P. (2024). SK-VQA: Synthetic Knowledge Generation at Scale for Training Context-Augmented Multimodal LLMs. arXiv:2406.19593

2024 arXiv
[20]

Zhou, D. (2022). Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models. ArXiv

2022
[21]

Ji, H. (2024). Unleashing the Emergent Cog- nitive Synergy in Large Language Models: A Task-Solving Agent through Multi-Persona Self- Collaboration. arXiv:2307.05300

2024 arXiv
[22]

Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q., and Zhou, D. (2023). Chain- of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. arXiv:2201.11903

2023 arXiv
[23]

H., White, R

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. arXiv:2308.08155 [cs]

2023 arXiv
[24]

Huang, X., and Gui, T. (2023). The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey. arXiv:2309.07864 [cs]

2023 arXiv
[25]

Yao, S., Yu, D., Zhao, J., Shafran, I., Griffiths, T., Cao, Y ., and Narasimhan, K. (2023). Tree of Thoughts: Delib- erate Problem Solving with Large Language Models. arXiv.org

2023
[26]

Yogatama, D., d’Autume, C. d. M., Connor, J., Kocisky, T., Chrzanowski, M., Kong, L., Lazaridou, A., Ling, W., Yu, L., Dyer, C., and Blunsom, P. (2019). Learn- ing and Evaluating General Linguistic Intelligence. arXiv:1901.11373 [cs, stat]

2019 arXiv
[27]

Yu, Z., He, L., Wu, Z., Dai, X., and Chen, J. (2023). To- wards Better Chain-of-Thought Prompting Strategies: A Survey. arXiv.org

2023
[28]

Z., and Fredrikson, M

Zou, A., Wang, Z., Kolter, J. Z., and Fredrikson, M. (2023). Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models. arXiv:2307.15043 [cs]

2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Niewiadomski, H., Nyczyk, P., and Hoefler, T. (2023). Graph of Thoughts: Solving Elaborate Problems with Large Language Models. arXiv:2308.09687 [cs]

arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

Do large language models resemble humans in language use?

Cai, Z. G., Haslett, D. A., Duan, X., Wang, S., and Picker- ing, M. J. (2023). Does ChatGPT resemble humans in language use? arXiv:2303.08014 [cs]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[3] [3]

Chen, B., Zhang, Z., Langren’e, N., and Zhu, S. (2023). Unleashing the potential of prompt engineering in Large Language Models: a comprehensive review. arXiv.org

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Dong, Y ., Jiang, X., Jin, Z., and Li, G. (2024). Self- Collaboration Code Generation via ChatGPT. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 33(7):189:1–189:38

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., and Zschech, P. (2023). Generative AI. Business & Information Systems Engineering. arXiv:2309.07930 [cs]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Sharma, A., and Goodman, N. D. (2024). Stream of Search (SoS): Learning to Search in Language. arXiv:2404.03683

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Hendel, R., Geva, M., and Globerson, A. (2023). In-Context Learning Creates Task Vectors. arXiv:2310.15916 [cs]

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

Zhou, L., Ran, C., Xiao, L., Wu, C., and Schmidhuber, J. (2023). MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi- Agent Collaborative Framework. arXiv:2308.00352 [cs]

arXiv 2023