Cited by 4Advanced Thermoelectric Materials and DevicesMachine Learning in Materials ScienceThermal properties of materials

Human-Machine Collaborative Design of SnTe-Based Thermoelectric Materials via a Multiagent Framework Leveraging Large Language Models

Su, Haojian, Lei, Shuai, Chen, Yazhou, Lv, Yanfei, Zhang, Quan·2025·ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

Abstract

Herein, we present an innovative large language model (LLM)-driven multiagent collaborative framework for the human-machine collaborative design of SnTe-based thermoelectric materials. Composed of strategy planning and reasoning modules, this framework efficiently extracts implicit domain knowledge from extensive literature and integrates historical experimental data to deduce optimization strategies and compositional ratio ranges, representing a novel paradigm that transcends traditional empirical and computational approaches in material design. Under the guidance of LLM, experimental results validate its efficacy: the incorporation of Sb, Ge, and Cu elements not only optimizes carrier concentration but also induces multiscale defects, synergistically modulating electrical and thermal transport properties. Notably, the (Sn 0.58 Sb 0.12 Ge 0.3 Te) 0.95 (Cu 2 Te) 0.05 sample achieves a zT value of ∼1.2, marking a 40% increase compared to Sb-doped SnTe and a 267% rise relative to SnTe prepared by the same method, directly demonstrating that LLM guidance can significantly enhance material performance. This research not only showcases the potential of LLMs to revolutionize thermoelectric material development but also provides a valuable reference for high-performance material design in broader energy-related fields with implications for improving waste heat recovery and solid-state cooling technologies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acsami.5c16158

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A second group of studies used hybrid human-in-the-loop designs, where the agentic layer guided design or analysis but final judgment remained partly manual.

    “A second group of studies used hybrid human-in-the-loop designs, where the agentic layer guided design or analysis but final judgment remained partly manual [20,22,27,30,31].”
  • The remaining literature was distributed across general materials-workflow papers, atomistic simulation infrastructures, MOF and porous-material screening, and polymer simulation.

    “The remaining literature was distributed across general materials-workflow papers, atomistic simulation infrastructures, MOF and porous-material screening, and polymer simulation [17,21,22,24-26,32,35-42].”
  • In other papers, the workflow could be reconstructed only partially from supporting information, and prompt logs, failure traces, or decision histories remained incomplete.

    “In others, the workflow could be reconstructed only partially from supporting information, and prompt logs, failure traces, or decision histories remained incomplete [17,22,24,26,27,29,33,34].”
  • Other papers were more demonstrative, emphasizing workflow feasibility, design navigation, or case-based success rather than tightly standardized metrics.

    “Other papers were more demonstrative, emphasizing workflow feasibility, design navigation, or case-based success rather than tightly standardized metrics [17,18,21,22,35,37-39,41].”
  • Hybrid human-in-the-loop systems accounted for four of the six experimentally validated papers, which suggests that human oversight appears to be retained more often where the downstream consequences of an incorrect decision are more costly or irreversible, although the small sample precludes strong inference.

    “Hybrid human-in-the-loop systems accounted for four of the six experimentally validated papers, which suggests that human oversight appears to be retained more often where the downstream consequences of an incorrect decision are more costly or irreversible, although the small sample precludes strong inference [20,22,27,30,31].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Su, H., Lei, S., Chen, Y., Lv, Y., & Zhang, Q.
Affiliations
PLA Academy of Military Science (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Su, Haojian
  • Zhang, Quan
Venue
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Published
2025-11-10
Volume
17
Issue
46
Pages
63572-63584
ISSN
  • 1944-8244 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-8252
OpenAlex
W4416393373
Cited by
4
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
0.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Key Research and Development Program of China (2024YFB3312904)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Advanced Thermoelectric Materials and Devices
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Thermal properties of materials
Keywords
SnTe, thermoelectric materials, large language models, antimony doping, germanium doping, Cu2Te, carrier concentration, figure of merit ZT, waste heat recovery, solid-state cooling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review