Hierarchical Multi-Agent Reasoning Systems for Knowledge-Grounded Material Substitution
Authors: Tarjei Paule Hage, Subhadeep Pal, Wei Lu, Yu-Chuan Hsu, Gayla Lyon, Jiezhu Jin, Markus J. Buehler
Organizations: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA · Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA · Saint-Gobain Research North America, Northborough, MA, USA · Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Schwarzman College of Computing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
AI-assisted scientific discovery increasingly seeks to move beyond generating plausible ideas toward reproducible, constraint-aware workflows that can support practical engineering decisions. We present MARS, a hierarchical Multi-Agent Reasoning System for knowledge-grounded material substitution under scientific and manufacturing constraints. We apply MARS to replace per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a demanding materials-design problem in which substitutes must satisfy functional performance, environmental, experimental, and processing requirements. MARS decomposes substitution into a closed-loop workflow comprising requirement analysis, grounded candidate generation, and manufacturability assessment with process design. The system integrates retrieval-augmented generation, knowledge-graph reasoning, a database of lab-available materials, persistent memory of intermediate results, and rejection-aware iterative feedback. In a PFAS-substitution case study, MARS generates structured material requirements, identifies an evidence-grounded substitute candidate, and develops a lab-scale manufacturing route. In a multi-seed ablation evaluation, MARS achieves the highest overall performance across all three subsystems, with gains that persist when the backbone model is held fixed. These results suggest that hierarchical decomposition, knowledge grounding, and manufacturability-aware refinement improve material-substitution reasoning beyond model capability alone.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overall architecture of the hierarchical multi-agent framework. High-level schematic of the proposed closed-loop hierarchical multi-agent system for PFAS material substitution. Dark gray elements indicate multi-agent systems, while light gray elements indicate intermediate results. From a natural-language query Q , the system first extracts required properties W and hard constraints H , then identifies a grounded substitute candidate S with supporting evidence E , and finally assesses lab-scale manufacturability to produce either a process recipe P or blocking constraints C . All intermediate results are stored in persistent memory, enabling iterative refinement until a candidate passes the framework’s internal feasibility assessment.
Figure 2: Knowledge sources used across the hierarchical multi-agent framework. Overview of the knowledge sources used across the three subsystems of the hierarchical multi-agent framework. System 1 is grounded in a curated PFAS research corpus and a domain-specific KG, System 2 uses complementary KGs, patent data, and a database of lab-available materials to identify substitute candidates, and System 3 draws on process-relevant textual sources for manufacturability assessment and process design. Here, the database-stack symbols denote text vector databases, the graph symbols denote KGs, and the folder symbol denotes the custom-built internal materials database.
Figure 3: Schematic of the model-proposed substitute material. Schematic cross-section of the substitute material proposed by MARS for the THV case study, consisting of a polyolefin elastomer base, an EVOH gas-barrier layer, and an OTS oleophobic surface coating. Layer thicknesses are not drawn to scale. The schematic represents the model-proposed design; no physical sample was fabricated in the present study.
Figure 4: Closed-loop candidate refinement in the THV case study. Rejection-aware search trace for the THV substitution query, illustrating closed-loop interaction between System 2 (material feasibility screening) and System 3 (manufacturability assessment). Material substitution requirements produced by System 1 are passed to System 2, which iteratively generates and screens candidates, rejecting those that violate hard constraints, for example by containing PFAS. Candidates that pass System 2 screening are forwarded to System 3 for manufacturability evaluation. When System 3 rejects a candidate, structured feedback is returned to System 2, which initiates another round of candidate generation and screening. Solid arrows indicate the main workflow, while dashed arrows indicate internal rejections within System 2. The trace terminates when System 3 assigns a candidate the manufacturable verdict.
Configuration
MAS
RAG/KG
IR
Description
MARS
✓
✓
✓
Full framework using gpt-oss-20b , combining multi-agent decomposition, RAG/Graph-RAG grounding, and closed-loop iterative refinement.
MARS ( gpt-5.6-sol )
✓
✓
✓
Full MARS framework with gpt-5.6-sol as the backbone of all agents.
Ablation 3
✓
×
×
Three-stage gpt-oss-20b pipeline with subsystem-level decomposition but without RAG/Graph-RAG or iterative refinement.
Ablation 2
×
✓
×
Single-call gpt-oss-20b baseline with static RAG/Graph-RAG grounding but without iterative refinement.
Ablation 1
×
×
×
Single-call gpt-oss-20b baseline without retrieval, graph grounding, or iterative refinement.
Ablation 1 ( gpt-5.6-sol )
×
×
×
Single-call gpt-5.6-sol baseline without retrieval, graph grounding, or iterative refinement.
Table 1: Summary of the framework configurations evaluated in the ablation study. MAS denotes multi-agent system, RAG/KG denotes RAG/Graph-RAG integration, and IR denotes iterative refinement based on internal critique.
Figure 5: Evaluation performance across framework configurations. Performance comparison across the evaluated framework configurations.(a) Overall average score across the twelve evaluation criteria for all six configurations. (b) Subsystem-level scores for Systems 1–3, corresponding to requirement analysis, candidate generation, and manufacturability assessment, respectively. (c) Criterion-level comparison of the two MARS backbones across the three subsystems. Criteria are completeness (Compl), scientific correctness (Sci), evidence grounding (Grnd), investigation quality (Inv), requirement alignment (Algn), adversarial verification (Verif), candidate anchoring (Anchor), adaptive reasoning (Adapt), route coherence (Route), operational practicality (Prac), material-process compatibility (Compat), and feasibility-verdict grounding (Verd). Bars show mean judge scores across repeated runs, with error bars indicating standard deviations. For MARS ( gpt-5.6-sol ), the overall score in panel (a) and the System 3 score in panel (b) are calculated over four route-producing runs because one run terminated before System 3 was invoked. In panel (c), asterisks denote criteria for which one MARS run was unavailable or the corresponding capability was unexercised and was therefore excluded from the criterion mean. gpt-6-astra is used as the LLM judge.
Pipeline
System 1
System 2
System 3
Total
MARS ( gpt-5.6-sol )
6.72±0.77
6.26±0.38
7.25±0.37∗
6.78
MARS ( gpt-oss-20b )
5.85±0.48
5.22±0.35
5.35±0.41
5.47
1 LLM Call ( gpt-5.6-sol )
4.00±0.25
2.17±0.11
4.47±0.06
3.55
1 LLM Call (w/ RAG/KG)
4.53±0.53
1.70±0.19
4.10±0.31
3.44
1 LLM Call (No RAG/KG)
3.40±0.31
1.73±0.06
3.85±0.48
2.99
3 LLM Calls (No RAG/KG)
3.45±0.23
2.05±0.14
2.42±1.28
2.64
Table 2: Evaluation scores for each configuration on a 0–10 scale. Subsystem scores are reported as mean ± standard deviation over five runs. Structurally absent capabilities score zero; unexercised MARS criteria are excluded. ∗ System 3 is averaged over four route-producing runs.
Figure 6: System 2 to System 3 feedback ablation. Isolation of System 3-to-System 2 feedback on the reported THV query. (a) Mean subsystem scores when System 3 blocking constraints are propagated to System 2 or withheld. System 1 is identical in both conditions. (b) Criterion-level comparison for Systems 2 and 3. Feedback produces only modest changes in System 2 scores but substantially improves all System 3 feasibility-related criteria. Bars show means over five judge repetitions; error bars indicate standard deviations.
RAG Source
Source Corpus Size
VectorDB File Size
PFAS research corpus
4,716 papers
1.3GB
Patent corpus
13,654 patents
69MB
Material specification sheets
20 documents
6.5MB
Polymer science textbooks
35 textbooks
260MB
Table 3: Summary of the text-based retrieval sources used in the study. These sources support RAG across the three subsystems of the hierarchical multi-agent framework.
Knowledge Graph
Source Corpus
Nodes
Edges
Graph File Size
Embedding File Size
PFAS
4,612 papers
144,335
459,248
137MB
432MB
Material Properties
62,999 abstracts
317,800
774,009
229MB
481MB
Patents
13,654 patents
199,008
578,361
154MB
594MB
Table 4: Summary of the three KGs used in the study. The PFAS-specific KG and the Material Properties KG are taken from [ 49 ] , while the Patents KG is newly constructed in this work.
Materials process optimization requires reasoning over routes, conditions, tools and causal dependencies, yet most computational formulations flatten synthesis procedures into text or ordered steps. We introduce MatProcBench, a provenance-grounded benchmark constructed from literature-mined MatPROV graphs, to evaluate seven process-reasoning tasks spanning route continuity, step-level variable inference and global causal consistency under both same-split and shift-aware evaluation, including a strict dual-OOD split that combines temporal and material-class shift. We further introduce ProvMind, a process-memory reasoning framework that retrieves analogous training processes, converts them into provenance-aware option-level compatibility scores, and uses a language model for constrained final decision making. ProvMind achieves 52.84% accuracy on the dual-OOD split, outperforming prompting, retrieval-augmented and supervised fine-tuning baselines.
Yiming Zhang, Ryo Tamura, Koji Tsuda
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Chiba, Japan. · Center for Basic Research on Materials, National Institute for Materials Science, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan. · RIKEN Center for Advanced Intelligence Project, Tokyo, Japan.
Generative models have revolutionized the process of materials discovery, yet they often fail to satisfy underlying physical causality. Through an analysis of Large Language Models (LLMs) augmented with knowledge graphs derived from current literature, we uncover a phenomenon termed contextual tunneling, where models "over-anchor" on narrow, retrieved evidence while suppressing global physical reasoning. To address this problem, we introduce ARIA, a causal-aware framework that conditions knowledge use on mechanistic completeness. ARIA routes each query through a three-tier cascade: (i) direct causal reasoning when complete evidence chains of Process-Structure-Property (PSP) are available, (ii) physics-informed analogical transfer for sparse or novel material systems, and (iii) explicit parametric fallback when external evidence is incomplete. As a proof of concept, we construct a Knowledge Graph (KG) containing 2,839 extracted PSP relations from peer-reviewed articles in the materials literature and evaluate ARIA on forward prediction and inverse design tasks for two-dimensional (2D) materials. ARIA mitigates contextual tunneling, improves over unaugmented and naive KG-augmented baselines, and provides further gains when an online literature search is used for evidence enrichment. Crucially, ARIA produces auditable causal traces, enabling physically grounded and trustworthy AI-assisted materials discovery.
Yi Cao, Liaoyaqi Wang, Jieneng Chen +3
Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA · Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
Accelerating materials discovery requires AI systems that can generate scientifically valid hypotheses through multi-step, domain-grounded reasoning. Standard large language models often produce fluent but weakly traceable responses to open-ended materials design problems, making it difficult to determine whether final answers are supported by coherent intermediate reasoning. We develop Graph-PRefLexOR, a family of graph-native reasoning models fine-tuned with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to organize reasoning into explicit phases for mechanism exploration, graph construction, pattern extraction, and hypothesis synthesis. This design links neural language generation with symbolic relational structure, enabling causal connections to be constructed, inspected, and reused. On 100 open-ended questions from materials science and mechanics literature, Graph-PRefLexOR achieves 40-65% improvements over corresponding base models, with the largest gains in reasoning traceability. Embedding analyses show broader semantic exploration and approximately 2-3 times greater semantic diversity than baselines. Semantic backtracking and layer-wise hidden-state analyses further show stronger alignment between structured reasoning and final answers. Finally, test-time graph expansion reveals that additional compute primarily increases long-range conceptual recombination within a bounded semantic space, rather than simply expanding semantic coverage. These results establish graph-native reinforcement learning as a pathway toward interpretable AI systems for scientific hypothesis generation in materials design and other scientific applications.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Cambridge, MA, USA · Department of Physics Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis, MO, USA · Computing and Computational Sciences Directorate Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN, USA +3