Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

MenTeR: A fully-automated Multi-agenT workflow for end-to-end RF/Analog Circuits Netlist Design

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AI agents pass 84.2% of 24 analog design tasks on first try

desk verdict Solid multi-agent analog synthesis workflow, but its own Appendix B shows the automated checker can certify broken system-level netlists, so the headline pass rates are not yet trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22990 v2 pith:I2ZOYPHR submitted 2025-05-29 cs.AI cs.ETcs.LG

Pin-Han Chen , Yu-Sheng Lin , Wei-Cheng Lee , Tin-Yu Leu , Po-Hsiang Hsu , Anjana Dissanayake , Sungjin Oh , Chinq-Shiun Chiu This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.ETcs.LG
keywords RF/Analogcircuitdesignmulti-agentLLMworkflowChain-of-StagereasoningDiagram-AwareRAGnetlistgenerationpass@kevaluationbandgapreferenceanalogEDA
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

MenTeR is a fully automated workflow in which specialized large-language-model agents cooperate to turn an analog or RF circuit specification into a finished netlist. The central claim is that this division of labor works: across 24 benchmark tasks, from elementary blocks to multi-block designs, the system reaches an average 84.2% success on the first attempt and 89.2% within five attempts, and an 80% first-attempt rate on a CMOS bandgap reference, without human intervention or fine-tuning. The authors attribute the gain to two techniques, Chain-of-Stage reasoning, which decomposes a design into sequential stages, and Diagram-Aware RAG, which turns textbook diagrams into retrievable text; removing either one lowers the average first-attempt rate by 9 to 14 points. If correct, this is evidence that LLM-based agents can move past simplified textbook problems toward practical analog blocks, making a human-in-the-loop RF/analog copilot a plausible next step.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the multi-agent pipeline itself, with two named components doing the heavy lifting. Chain-of-Stage (CoS) reasoning splits a design task into sequential subproblems, such as specification grounding, topology choice, and parameter synthesis, so each stage's prompt and output feed the next. Diagram-Aware Retrieval-Augmented Generation (DA-RAG) converts schematic-heavy textbook material into Markdown text that can be retrieved alongside prose, letting the model exploit circuit diagrams as knowledge. Around these sit the PI agent's task decomposition, the Executor's syntax and executability checks, the Testbench Agent's DC sweep, connection, and functionality checks, and the Circuit Think Tank's repository of prior successful designs.

What would settle it

Run every netlist that the Testbench Agent accepts through an independent SPICE simulator and a manual schematic connectivity and performance review; if a non-negligible fraction of accepted netlists shows missing connections or fails functional specifications, the claim that MenTeR solves 84.2% of tasks on the first attempt is refuted as evidence of real design capability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim MenTeR is the first fully automated multi-agent workflow for end-to-end RF/analog netlist design using large language models, and they test that claim by decomposing the design task into cooperating agents: a Primary Investigator agent parses the specification and gathers relevant documents; a Circuit Agent, built around a Chain-of-Stage reasoner, produces the netlist; an Executor agent checks syntax and feeds errors back; a Testbench Agent writes and runs DC sweep, connection, and functionality checks; and successful designs are stored in a Circuit Think Tank for reuse. The paper reports that this workflow solves 84.2% of the 24 benchmark tasks on the first attempt and 89.2% within five attempts, and that it solves the additional CMOS bandgap reference task 80% of the time on the first attempt and 100% within five. The authors also report that the workflow stays above 77% first-attempt success across two backbone large language models, and that stripping out either Diagram-Aware RAG or Chain-of-Stage reasoning lowers the average. The intended conclusion is that a fully automated specification-to-netlist multi-agent system is feasible for industrial-scale analog blocks, with human oversight still needed mainly for system-level verification.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Testbench Agent's automatic DC sweep, connection, and functionality checks certify a genuinely working circuit; Appendix B shows this premise can break, because a PLL that passed those checks still contained missing inter-block connections and incorrectly defined subcircuits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported pass rates hold, the routine part of analog design---turning a specification into a working netlist---can be automated, leaving designers to concentrate on verification and system-level optimization.
  • The ablations show that both staged reasoning and diagram-aware retrieval are required; a flat multi-agent workflow without them performs measurably worse, so future systems should retain both components.
  • Every successful design stored in the Circuit Think Tank becomes reusable knowledge, so the workflow should get better as it accumulates completed circuits and should yield a dataset for future fine-tuned analog reasoning models.
  • Because the workflow is built on a generic LLM without fine-tuning, the same architecture can be carried to new circuit families by swapping in a stronger backbone or expanding the document corpus.
  • The perfect or near-perfect five-attempt success on the harder tasks, including the bandgap reference, suggests that allowing a small number of retries is enough to make the system practically useful in a design flow.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims, the Appendix B PLL example suggests the pass@k numbers measure internal consistency more than verified correctness, because a netlist accepted by the Testbench Agent still had missing inter-block connections and incorrectly defined subcircuits.
  • A direct extension would be to run every accepted netlist through an independent SPICE simulation and a manual connectivity review, then measure how much of the 84.2% first-attempt rate survives external validation.
  • The two accepted but structurally different netlists for the op-amp adder indicate the given specifications are underconstrained; adding output swing, matching, and noise constraints would likely separate genuinely robust designs from merely plausible ones.
  • The Circuit Think Tank's growth implies a scaling claim the paper does not test: pass rates should increase with repository size, which could be checked by ablating the number of stored designs.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MenTeR, a multi-agent LLM workflow for analog/RF circuit netlist design, composed of a Primary Investigator (PI) agent, a Circuit Agent with Chain-of-Stage (CoS) reasoning, a Testbench Agent with DA-RAG-based validation, and a Circuit Think Tank for storing and reusing validated designs. The authors report Pass@1 of 84.2% and Pass@5 of 89.2% on 24 analog design tasks from AnalogCoder, and 80% Pass@1 on a bandgap reference task, with additional ablations showing that both DA-RAG and CoS contribute to performance. The paper frames MenTeR as 'fully-automated' and as a step toward RF/Analog Copilots.

Significance. If the reported results hold under independent validation, MenTeR would be a useful contribution to LLM-based analog design: it combines multiple specialized agents, integrates diagram-derived knowledge via DA-RAG, structures reasoning through CoS, and provides a public AICB knowledge benchmark as a secondary contribution. The paper also includes candid appendices on engineering challenges. However, the central evaluation is currently anchored to a self-referential checker, and the paper's own Appendix B documents failures of that checker on a system-level PLL design, which directly undermines the 'fully-automated' claim and leaves the headline Pass@k numbers unverified as evidence of real design capability. The strengths are the framework design and the ablation comparisons; the weakness is the lack of independent validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B] Appendix B reports that a PLL implementation 'deemed correct by the benchmark criteria' contained incorrectly defined subcircuits and missing inter-block connections, and concludes that 'maintaining a human-in-the-loop approach remains essential.' This directly contradicts the title, the abstract, and Section V's claim of a 'fully-automated' workflow that requires no human intervention. Because the PLL example lies in the system-level regime that Section IV-B highlights as a key strength, the authors must either restrict their claims to block-level designs or add independent system-level validation before asserting robust real-world capability.
  2. [Section III-C and Section IV-A (Eq. 1)] The pass@k metric in Eq. (1) depends on c, the number of 'correct' solutions, but correctness is determined entirely by the Testbench Agent, a MenTeR component that generates the simulation code and the checks itself. This makes the success criterion self-referential. Appendix B demonstrates that this internal checker can certify a functionally incorrect PLL, so the reported Pass@1 of 84.2% and the BGR Pass@1 of 80% are not anchored to an independent ground truth. Please validate a sample of generated netlists (or all of them) with an external simulator and/or expert review, and report both the internal pass rate and the externally verified pass rate.
  3. [Section III-D] The Circuit Think Tank stores circuits that have been 'validated by the Testbench Agent' and later reuses them as design patterns for new tasks. Given the unsound validation identified in Appendix B, this mechanism can propagate latent errors across tasks. The paper should also clarify whether any of the 24 benchmark tasks overlap with circuits previously stored in the CTT, since such overlap could inflate the reported Pass@k values. Please specify the relationship between the CTT contents and the evaluation tasks.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title page] The title page shows 'M ulti-agenT' with irregular spacing; please correct to 'Multi-agent'.
  2. [Table I] The header row is difficult to parse: the model names (DeepSeek R1 Distill 32B, GPT-4o, GPT-o3-mini, GPT-4o) are not clearly aligned with the method columns (AnalogCoder, Multi-Agent Workflow, MenTeR w/o DA-RAG, MenTeR w/o CoS, MenTeR). Please reformat the table so that each method's backbone model is unambiguous.
  3. [References] Reference [5] (AMSnet-KG) appears in the reference list but is not cited anywhere in the body; please add a citation or remove the reference.
  4. [Section IV-A] The sentence stating that all solutions were 'further inspected with basic electrical rule checks and circuit simulations' does not specify who performs these checks or whether they are independent of the Testbench Agent; please clarify.
  5. [Appendix B] Appendix B refers to Figure 7, but the schematic is not visible in the provided manuscript text; please ensure the figure is included and legible.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Pass@k is scored by MenTeR's own Testbench Agent, and Appendix B shows that checker can certify incorrect netlists, so the reported success rates are self-referential rather than externally validated.

  1. self definitional [Section III-C, Section IV-A, Eq. (1)]
    "The Test-Bench Agent (TBA) defines appropriate simulations required for the specific circuit, implementing three specialized validation components: DC sweep checker, MOSFET ... connection checker, and functionality verifier. TBA generates corresponding Python code to validate the PySpice implementation. ... A circuit is deemed 'correct' if it meets the specified performance criteria (e.g., gain, power consumption, linearity, bandwidth, etc.)"

    Eq. (1) defines pass@k using c, 'the number of correct solutions,' but correctness is assigned by the Testbench Agent, a component of MenTeR itself. The validator is therefore part of the system being scored: a design 'passes' if MenTeR's own TBA-generated Python checks say so. The success criterion is defined by the system under test rather than by an independent oracle, so the reported 84.2% Pass@1 measures self-consistency with the internal checker, not externally verified design capability.

  2. other [Appendix B]
    "For instance, Figure 7 shows a PLL implementation that was deemed correct by the benchmark criteria but contained errors upon schematic inspection. These errors primarily fell into two categories: incorrectly defined subcircuits ... and missing wire connections ..."

    Appendix B documents a PLL that the benchmark criteria (the TBA checks) marked correct while schematic inspection showed incorrectly defined subcircuits and missing inter-block connections. This is an explicit instance of the self-referential validator certifying a functionally incorrect design. Because the same TBA computes the 'correct' counts for the BGR and hard tasks in Table I, the headline results are not anchored to independent simulation or expert review; the paper's own conclusion that 'maintaining a human-in-the-loop approach remains essential' concedes the automated validation is insufficient.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim is that MenTeR 'demonstrates robust capabilities in handling real-world analog systems,' supported by Pass@1 of 84.2% and an 80% BGR Pass@1. The derivation chain for this claim is: MenTeR generates a netlist, the Testbench Agent generates validation code, that same agent's checks decide whether the netlist is 'correct,' and Eq. (1) converts those counts into pass@k. Since the TBA is part of MenTeR and is not independently verified, the success criterion reduces to the system's own self-assessment. Appendix B makes the unsoundness concrete by showing a PLL that passed the benchmark checks yet had missing inter-block connections and incorrectly defined subcircuits. Thus the reported pass rates are not externally anchored, particularly for the system-level tasks where the appendix says integration errors can escape automated validation. The paper's own admission that 'maintaining a human-in-the-loop approach remains essential' further confirms that the automated validator cannot stand as the sole ground truth for the headline results. This is a partial circularity of the evaluation loop rather than a self-citation or uniqueness-importation problem; the core LLM-agent architecture may have independent content, but the evidence for its claimed capability is self-referential.

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

The central performance claims rest on assumptions about LLM reasoning capability, simulator fidelity, benchmark validity, and the correctness of the system's self-validation. None of these are independently verified in the paper, and Appendix B directly challenges the validation assumption.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GPT-4o (and similar LLMs) possess sufficient analog-design reasoning and circuit knowledge to produce functionally correct netlists when scaffolded by prompting and retrieval.
    The entire framework depends on the backbone LLM's pretrained knowledge; Section IV.A uses GPT-4o for all MenTeR runs and Appendix E quantifies its analog IC knowledge at 85 percent, which is not a guarantee of correct design.
  • domain assumption PySpice simulations with level-1 MOSFET models accurately capture the functional behavior of the designed circuits.
    The Testbench Agent validates circuits using PySpice; simplified models (as in netlists in Appendix D) may not reflect real transistor behavior, so simulation 'passes' may not correspond to silicon-level correctness.
  • domain assumption The 24 tasks from AnalogCoder [3] and their evaluation criteria are a valid proxy for real-world analog design difficulty.
    The paper claims industrial relevance but Appendix B shows the benchmark can accept incorrect PLLs, and Appendix D notes that loosely specified tasks admit multiple topologies.
  • ad hoc to paper The Diagram-Aware RAG conversion of textbook figures into Markdown text preserves enough schematic and connectivity information for downstream agents.
    DA-RAG (Section III-E2) relies on a text-conversion tool [19] and an LLM to verbalize diagrams; no evaluation of information loss is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The Circuit Think Tank stores and retrieves validated designs that are correctly labeled and useful for new tasks.
    The CTT (Section III-D) is populated from the system's own validated outputs, so any systematic validation error propagates into the knowledge base.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MenTeR: A fully-automated Multi-agenT workflow for end-to-end RF/Analog Circuits Netlist Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I2ZOYPHR

@misc{pith2026250522990,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MenTeR: A fully-automated Multi-agenT workflow for end-to-end RF/Analog Circuits Netlist Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I2ZOYPHR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22990}
}
read the original abstract

RF/Analog design is essential for bridging digital technologies with real-world signals, ensuring the functionality and reliability of a wide range of electronic systems. However, analog design procedures are often intricate, time-consuming and reliant on expert intuition, and hinder the time and cost efficiency of circuit development. To overcome the limitations of the manual circuit design, we introduce MenTeR - a multiagent workflow integrated into an end-to-end analog design framework. By employing multiple specialized AI agents that collaboratively address different aspects of the design process, such as specification understanding, circuit optimization, and test bench validation, MenTeR reduces the dependency on frequent trial-and-error-style intervention. MenTeR not only accelerates the design cycle time but also facilitates a broader exploration of the design space, demonstrating robust capabilities in handling real-world analog systems. We believe that MenTeR lays the groundwork for future "RF/Analog Copilots" that can collaborate seamlessly with human designers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22990 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of MenTeR. A fully-automated multi-agent workflow for RF/Analog circuit design that translates specifications to netlist. MenTeR is designed with interactive checkpoints where human designers can intervene as needed. ultimately system-level through a scalable approach; 2) A practical study of LLMs’ reasoning capabilities en￾hancement with Diagram-Aware Retrieval-Augmented Generation (DA-RAG) and self-refere… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between single-agent and simplified multi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of MenTeR agents. B. Circuit Agent Upon receiving processed requirements from the PI Agent, the Circuit Agent (CA) functions as a ”senior analog designer,” generating the actual circuit design in PySpice1 format. The CA’s internal architecture consists of two primary components: the Chain-of-Stage (CoS) agent and the Executor agent. The CoS agent manages design stage reasoning, identifies familiar circuit b… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CoS reasoning stages for the BGR circuit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pass@k comparison between single-agent baseline and MenTeR. B. Comparison Results Table I presents our experimental results, with testing lim￾ited to five attempts per task for cost effectiveness. We used GPT-4o as the backbone model for all our approaches to main￾tain…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schematic of an AI generated Phase-Locked Loop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. CircuitLM: A Multi-Agent LLM-Aided Design Framework for Generating Circuit Schematics from Natural Language Prompts

    cs.AI 2026-01 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A five-stage multi-agent pipeline with retrieval from a component database generates CircuitJSON schematics from natural-language prompts, achieving high ERC pass rates but much lower LLM-judge pass rates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Chipnemo: Domain-adapted llms for chip design,

    M. Liu, T. Ene, R. Kirby, C. Cheng, N. Pinckney, R. Liang, J. Alben, H. Anand, S. Banerjee, I. Bayraktaroglu, B. Bhaskaran, B. Catanzaro, A. Chaudhuri, S. Clay, B. Dally, L. Dang, P. Deshpande, S. Dhodhi, S. Halepete, E. Hill, J. Hu, S. Jain, B. Khailany, K. Kunal, X. Li, H. Liu, S. Oberman, S. Omar, S. Pratty, A. Sarkar, Z. Shao, H. Sun, P. P. Suthar, V ...

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Chip-chat: Challenges and opportunities in conversational hardware design,

    J. Blocklove, S. Garg, R. Karri, and H. Pearce, “Chip-chat: Challenges and opportunities in conversational hardware design,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13243, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Analogcoder: Analog circuit design via training-free code generation,

    Y . Lai, S. Lee, G. Chen, S. Poddar, M. Hu, D. Z. Pan, and P. Luo, “Analogcoder: Analog circuit design via training-free code generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14918, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Ampagent: An llm-based multi-agent system for multi-stage amplifier schematic design from literature for process and performance porting,

    C. Liu, W. Chen, A. Peng, Y . Du, L. Du, and J. Yang, “Ampagent: An llm-based multi-agent system for multi-stage amplifier schematic design from literature for process and performance porting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14739, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Y . Shi, Z. Tao, Y . Gao, T. Zhou, C. Chang, T. Wang, B. Chen, G. Zhang, A. Liu, Z. Yu, T. Lin, L. He, ”AMSnet-KG: A Netlist Dataset for LLM- based AMS Circuit Auto-Design Using Knowledge Graph RAG”, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.13560, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Y . Deng, W. Zhang, Z. Chen, and Q. Gu, ”Rephrase and respond: Let large language models ask better questions for themselves” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04205

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, E. Chi, Q. Le, and D. Zhou. ”Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models,

    S. Yao, D. Yu, J. Zhao, I. Shafran, T. L. Griffiths, Y . Cao, and K. Narasimhan, “Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models,” CoRR, vol. abs/2305.10601, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Retrieval augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. K ¨ uttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rockt ¨aschel et al., “Retrieval augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 9459–9474, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    B. Liu et al., ”LayoutCopilot: An LLM-Powered Multi-Agent Collab- orative Framework for Interactive Analog Layout Design,” in IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, doi: 10.1109/TCAD.2025.3529805

  3. [11]

    Ouyang, J

    L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, J. Schulman, J. Hilton, F. Kelton, L. Miller, M. Simens, A. Askell, P.Welinder, P. F. Christiano, J. Leike, and R. Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions w...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Rafailov, A

    R. Rafailov, A. Sharma, E. Mitchell, S. Ermon, C. D. Manning, and C. Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. In NeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Y . Meng, M. Xia, and D. Chen, SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward. In NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    D. Guo, D. Yang, H. Zhang, J. Song, R. Zhang, R. Xu, Q. Zhu, S. Ma, P. Wang, X. Bi, et al. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Q. Wu, G. Bansal, J. Zhang, Y . Wu, B. Li, E. Zhu, L. Jiang, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, J. Liu, et al. 2024. Autogen: Enabling next-gen LLM applications via multi-agent conversation. In ICLR 2024 Workshop on Large Language Model (LLM) Agents

    2024

  8. [16]

    L. Song, J. Liu, J. Zhang, S. Zhang, A. Luo, S. Wang, Q. Wu, and C. Wang. Adaptive in-conversation team building for language model agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19425, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    B. Razavi. 2017. Design of Analog CMOS Integrated Circuits (2nd. ed.). McGraw-Hill, Inc., USA

    2017

  10. [18]

    Razavi, ”The Design of a Low-V oltage Bandgap Reference [The Analog Mind],” in IEEE Solid-State Circuits Magazine, vol

    B. Razavi, ”The Design of a Low-V oltage Bandgap Reference [The Analog Mind],” in IEEE Solid-State Circuits Magazine, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 6-16, Summer 2021, doi: 10.1109/MSSC.2021.3088963

    2021

  11. [19]

    Vik Paruchuri, Marker, 2023, GitHub, https://github.com/VikParuchuri/ marker

    2023

  12. [20]

    I. M. Filanovsky and H. Baltes, ”CMOS Schmitt trigger design,” in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Fundamental Theory and Ap- plications, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 46-49, Jan. 1994, doi: 10.1109/81.260219

    1994 doi

  13. [21]

    OpenAI o1, https://openai.com/o1/

  14. [22]

    DeepSeek R1, https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1

  15. [23]

    OpenAI o3-mini, https://openai.com/index/openai-o3-mini/

  16. [24]

    DeepSeek R1 Distilled Qwen 32B, https://huggingface.co/deepseek- ai/DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B/

  17. [25]

    AICB: Analog Integrated Circuit Benchmark, https://github.com/ treeleaves30760/AICB-Analog-Integrated-Circuit-Benchmark/

  18. [26]

    Problem 20,

    C. Packer, S. Wooder, K. Lin, et al. MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08560, 2023. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We would like to thank Wei-Chen Chien and Min-Chun Wu for their valuable consultation on the agent framework. APPENDIX A MENTER STABILITY We e...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.