Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 30 references

DiffCkt: A Diffusion Model-Based Hybrid Neural Network Framework for Automatic Transistor-Level Generation of Analog Circuits

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DiffCkt claims that a hybrid diffusion model can take a 13-metric amplifier specification and directly output a sized transistor-level circuit structure, making it the first diffusion-based system to cover both structure generation and…

desk verdict DiffCkt's real contribution is joint structure-and-sizing generation for op-amps via graph diffusion, but the headline CGEI speedup rests on an uncontrolled comparison and the SOTA claim is not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00444 v2 pith:ETTBPFWX submitted 2025-07-01 cs.ET

Chengjie Liu , Jiajia Li , Yabing Feng , Wenhao Huang , Weiyu Chen , Yuan Du , Jun Yang , Li Du This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ET
keywords analogcircuitdesigndiffusionmodeltransistor-levelgenerationgraphoperationalamplifiersynthesisdevicesizing65nmCMOS
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

The paper tries to establish that analog pre-layout design, the step where an engineer picks an amplifier topology and sizes every device, can be automated with a diffusion model. DiffCkt takes a vector of 13 performance requirements and outputs both a circuit structure and the corresponding device parameters, with no structural input and no simulation loop during generation. If the claim holds, a designer would receive a sized, simulatable amplifier topology in seconds rather than hours of manual or iterative optimization. The authors report that generated circuits keep the requested metrics within roughly 15% on average (at zero tolerance) and that the framework's generation efficiency beats comparable methods by a factor of 2.21 to 8365.

What carries the argument

The engine is a graph representation of amplifiers in which devices are nodes and connections are recorded as port-pair matrices: an edge attribute $\xi \in \mathbb{R}^{k\times k}$ has $\xi_{i,j}=1$ exactly when port $i$ of one device connects to port $j$ of the other, with symmetric edges transposed. Common composite blocks such as differential pairs and current mirrors are collapsed into single nodes because their transistors often share the same parameters. Structure generation is a discrete denoising diffusion model using the transition-matrix formulation for discrete graphs, $Q^t = \alpha_t I + (1-\alpha_t) \frac{1}{d} \mathbf{1}_d \mathbf{1}_d^T$, which corrupts and restores node types and edge matrices; sizing is a continuous denoising diffusion model that predicts the Gaussian noise added to the nodes' continuous parameters. A small MLP predicts the number of nodes, so the whole pipeline runs conditionally on the 13-metric requirement vector with no simulation iterations at generation time.

What would settle it

Hold out 50 specification vectors in the 'External' sampling range, generate 10 circuits per vector with DiffCkt, expand every composite block into its individual transistors, and re-simulate the full netlists in a foundry-level simulator without any parameter tuning; if fewer than half of the generated circuits meet all 13 metrics within the paper's tolerance, or if the average relative performance matches random selection from the 28 templates, then the claimed conditioned generation is not working.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a diffusion model can learn the joint distribution of analog amplifier graphs and their device parameters conditioned on a specification vector, making transistor-level generation a single forward pass. DiffCkt decomposes this into three chained networks: an MLP that predicts the number of devices, a discrete denoising diffusion network that predicts node types and port-level connections, and a continuous denoising diffusion network that predicts channel widths, lengths, and other sizing parameters. Trained on over 400,000 simulated amplifier samples in a 65nm CMOS process, the framework produces circuits whose re-simulated metrics track the requested values, with valid amplification rates of 84 to 90 percent and an average relative performance between 0.711 and 0.853 depending on the sampling interval. The authors state that this is the first diffusion-model-based system to cover both structure generation and sizing at the transistor level.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that collapsing standard building blocks such as differential pairs and current mirrors into single nodes with shared parameters does not discard the transistor-level detail needed to meet the specified performance, and that the 13-metric conditioning vector can disambiguate which circuit among many satisfies the request.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A designer can feed in a target specification and receive a sized, simulatable amplifier topology in about 7.7 seconds on a single A800 GPU, compared with hours for optimization-based sizing or language-model reasoning.
  • DDIM interval stepping provides a controllable speed-quality trade-off: one step maximizes fidelity (relative performance 0.853), while 20 steps cut generation time to roughly 0.81 seconds at 0.711, which makes large-scale design-space screening feasible.
  • Because generation needs no structural input and no simulation iteration, the same chained-diffusion pipeline could be retrained for other circuit classes and processes, provided a similarly large simulated dataset is available.
  • The 84 to 90 percent valid rate means that, for a given specification, a few independent samples will almost certainly produce a functional amplifier, although the framework does not guarantee 100 percent success.
  • The structural output space is bounded by the 28 multi-stage amplifier templates assembled from eight single-stage blocks, so the framework's contribution is fast conditional recombination and sizing rather than discovery of topologies outside that library.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because composite blocks are collapsed into single nodes, the generated 'transistor-level' circuits are really compositions of a fixed block library; testing a version with every transistor kept as a separate node would reveal how much of the reported performance the block-level compression buys.
  • The 13-metric conditioning vector is likely too coarse to pin down a unique circuit, so DiffCkt is effectively sampling from a multimodal posterior; measuring the diversity of valid outputs for a fixed specification would show how much structural variety the diffusion model actually learned.
  • The 10 to 16 percent invalid rate suggests a cheap closed-loop improvement: simulate only the failures, then either re-sample or locally fine-tune the failed netlists, rather than relying on the raw generative model to be perfect.
  • The reported 2.21 to 8365 times efficiency gain depends on how baseline figures of merit were converted, for example translating one language-model baseline's IFOM using its supply voltage and mapping another baseline's ideal modules to a 65nm process; re-running the comparison on the open-source dataset would settle how much of the headline speed-up survives those conversions.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. DiffCkt proposes a three-stage generative framework for analog amplifier design: an MLP predicts the number of devices, a discrete denoising diffusion network generates the device types and interconnections as a graph, and a continuous denoising diffusion network predicts device sizes, all conditioned on a 13-metric performance vector. The system is trained on over 400k simulated TSMC65nm operational-amplifier structure-performance pairs and is claimed to generate transistor-level circuits with no structural input and no simulation iterations. The paper reports a relative-performance score around 0.85, a valid generation rate of 84–90%, and a Circuit Generation Efficiency Index (CGEI) improvement of 2.21–8365× over prior methods, concluding that DiffCkt reaches state-of-the-art efficiency.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, DiffCkt would be a meaningful contribution to analog EDA: it is a rare system that addresses both topology generation and device sizing from specifications in one learned pipeline, it reports algorithmic details and a planned open-source dataset, and it does not rely on iterative simulation during inference. The diffusion-based graph generation approach is well-motivated and the experimental setup covers multiple sampling spaces. However, the headline efficiency advantage and the 'relative error within 15%' statement are not currently supported by the reported measurements, and the 'transistor-level' scope is more limited than the abstract suggests because the graph representation collapses composite building blocks into single nodes chosen from a fixed 28-topology library. These issues are fixable but require a revised comparison protocol and more direct error reporting.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V.C, Table VII] The CGEI comparison is not a like-for-like efficiency comparison. DiffCkt's reported time (7.69–7.97 s) is the inference time of the three networks and excludes the Spectre simulation needed to verify or characterize the generated circuit, whereas MACE's times include simulation-based optimization and LADAC's times include LLM execution and evaluation. For AmpAgent, the paper excludes the LLM's literature-analysis and math-reasoning execution time and supplies structures from DiffCkt's own training dataset as starting points, which is a different task. CktGNN generates ideal behavior-level modules rather than transistor-level netlists, so its CGEI is not measuring the same design output. For these reasons, the abstract's claim of '2.21~8365×' CGEI improvement is not established by the data as presented.
  2. [§V.C, Tables VI and VII] The 'Best DiffCkt' row in Table VII uses the best FOM (4530) from 50 samples in the External sampling space, while Table VI reports a mean FOM of 2401±723 for the same space. Using the mean FOM and the reported best-case time gives CGEI ≈ 301–312, which is only about 1.2× larger than AmpAgent's best CGEI (257.3), not 2.21×. The headline efficiency range is therefore driven by an extreme order statistic, and the paper does not report CGEI variability. The authors should report mean, median, and confidence intervals for CGEI and use the same statistic for all compared methods.
  3. [§VI and Algorithm 5] The conclusion that 'when the tolerance of the metric requirements is set at 0, the relative error of the generated circuit metrics can be, on average, constrained within 15%' is not supported by the reported 'relative performance' metric. Algorithm 5 defines a fitness score that subtracts a normalized penalty for each out-of-tolerance metric; it is not a per-metric relative error. A mean relative performance of 0.853±0.092 at interval step 1 does not imply that the average relative error per metric is 15%, because a single large violation could dominate the penalty. To support the claim, the authors need to report the actual distribution of per-metric relative errors, for example median and 90th percentile of |Y_act − Y_req|/Y_req across all 13 metrics.
  4. [§II.B and §V] The claim of 'transistor-level generation' is stronger than what the representation implements. The graph representation collapses composite building blocks such as differential pairs and current mirrors into single nodes because they 'often share the same parameters,' and the dataset is constructed from 28 amplifier structures formed by varying five multistage and eight single-stage topologies. Consequently, the discrete diffusion network selects and connects blocks from this fixed library rather than generating arbitrary transistor-level topologies. The paper should state this scope explicitly, and the novelty and capability claims in the abstract and introduction should be tempered accordingly unless additional evidence shows that the block library covers the relevant design space.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§III.A] The text says 'We performed random sampling' in Section III.A, while the introduction describes the dataset as 'exhaustively sampling and simulating'; please reconcile these descriptions.
  2. [§IV.B, Equations (1)–(3)] The notation for the diffusion schedule is inconsistent: Equation (1) uses α_t, Equations (2) and (3) both define Q^t with α_t, but the overline convention used in standard DDPM derivations is absent, and Equation (3) is redundant. Clarify how α_t is chosen across timesteps.
  3. [Table VII] The header 'CGEI C OMPARISON' contains a typo, and the CktGNN row has an extra dash column that should be removed.
  4. [Figure 4] The caption of Figure 4 does not mention that standard deviations are divided by 10; this is stated only in the main text, which makes the figure misleading on its own.
  5. [§V.A, Table III] The paper does not explain how the 50 test points per setting in Table IV are sampled across the four performance levels (External, High, Medium, Low), or whether 'the entire sampling space' includes the External range; this should be stated for reproducibility.
  6. [§I and §V.C] The diffusion-based sizing works [23] and [24] are cited when claiming novelty but are not included in the experimental comparison; a discussion or comparison with these works would strengthen the SOTA claim.
  7. [Throughout] The process name appears inconsistently as 'TSMC65', 'TSMC65nm', and 'TSMC 65nm'; please use one form consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: DiffCkt's generation is trained and evaluated against Spectre simulations; self-citations are disclosed baselines and a survey, not load-bearing.

full rationale

DiffCkt is a trained generative pipeline, not a derivation with fitted constants relabeled as predictions. The three networks (node-count MLP, discrete denoising diffusion, continuous denoising diffusion) are trained on a 400k-sample TSMC65nm dataset and their outputs are checked by Spectre simulation against the input requirement vector; no equation makes the output equal to the input by construction. CGEI=FOM/time (Section V.C) is an evaluation definition, not a model output. The paper's self-citations are to the authors' own prior baselines AmpAgent [5] and LADAC [9] in Table VII, and to the graph-diffusion survey [21] in the introduction; these are disclosed and the central claim does not rest on them, since the motivation also cites independent works [20], [22] and the generative results are self-contained against simulation. Comparison caveats exist (e.g., DiffCkt's tabulated time excludes post-generation Spectre verification, AmpAgent's excludes LLM analysis time, CktGNN outputs ideal modules, and AmpAgent was not replicated), but those affect the strength of the SOTA-efficiency claim, not its circularity. The stated limitation that valid rate is not 100% (Section VI) is an honest caveat and does not indicate circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the graph representation and the dataset's representativeness, not on fitted constants. CGEI is introduced as an evaluation metric and is not an output of the generative model. Normalization factors in Table II are conventional unit scales rather than free parameters.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The graph representation, with composite building blocks as single nodes, faithfully captures amplifier topology.
    Invoked in Section II.B. If false, the generated circuits are not truly transistor-level and the topology space is restricted to 28 predefined structures.
  • domain assumption The 13 simulated performance metrics are sufficient conditioning signals to determine a satisfiable topology and sizing.
    The input vector Y in Section IV consists of these metrics. Any unmodeled requirement, such as offset voltage or temperature behavior, cannot be targeted by the system.
  • domain assumption The 400k-sample dataset built from 28 topologies on TSMC 65nm spans the performance space users will request.
    Section III.A. The External sampling in Table III only slightly exceeds the training distribution and remains within those 28 topologies, so generalization beyond this space is untested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DiffCkt: A Diffusion Model-Based Hybrid Neural Network Framework for Automatic Transistor-Level Generation of Analog Circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ETTBPFWX

@misc{pith2026250700444,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DiffCkt: A Diffusion Model-Based Hybrid Neural Network Framework for Automatic Transistor-Level Generation of Analog Circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ETTBPFWX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00444}
}
abstract

Analog circuit design consists of the pre-layout and layout phases. Among them, the pre-layout phase directly decides the final circuit performance, but heavily depends on experienced engineers to do manual design according to specific application scenarios. To overcome these challenges and automate the analog circuit pre-layout design phase, we introduce DiffCkt: a diffusion model-based hybrid neural network framework for the automatic transistor-level generation of analog circuits, which can directly generate corresponding circuit structures and device parameters tailored to specific performance requirements. To more accurately quantify the efficiency of circuits generated by DiffCkt, we introduce the Circuit Generation Efficiency Index (CGEI), which is determined by both the figure of merit (FOM) of a single generated circuit and the time consumed. Compared with relative research, DiffCkt has improved CGEI by a factor of $2.21 \sim 8365\times$, reaching a state-of-the-art (SOTA) level. In conclusion, this work shows that the diffusion model has the remarkable ability to learn and generate analog circuit structures and device parameters, providing a revolutionary method for automating the pre-layout design of analog circuits. The circuit dataset will be open source, its preview version is available at https://github.com/CjLiu-NJU/DiffCkt.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00444 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of transferring an amplifier into its corresponding graph representation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Data distribution in our datasets. generate the following metrics for the amplifier: power consumption (Pdiss), DC gain (GainDC ), gain-bandwidth product (GBW), phase margin (PM), positive slew rate (SRP ), negative slew rate (SRN ), output voltage swing low (V OL), output voltage swing high (V OH), common-mode rejection ratio (CMRR), power supply rejection ratio (P SRR), input equivalent noise at 1 kHz (Noise@1kHz)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The overview of DiffCkt. Algorithm 2 Training Process on Discrete Graph 1: Input: Discrete graph Gd, and its Node vector V and Adjacency matrix E, Requirement Matrix Y , Number of epochs Nepoch, Total timesteps T 2: for i = 1 to Nepoch do 3: Randomly sample t ∼ Uniform({1, 2, . . . , T}) 4: Q t ← α t I + (1 − α t )1d1 T d /d 5: V t ← V · Q t d,V 6: for each ξ in E do 7: ξ t ← ξ · Q t d,ξ 8: end for 9: Gt ← (V t , E … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: DiffCkt’s performance with different interval steps and tolerances. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CGEI Comparison. CGEI = F OM(MHz · pF/mW) Time consumption (s) For [6], we trained it for 300 epochs on an A800 GPU. Since the original method used ideal modules, we referred to the process coefficients of TSMC65nm to convert the transconduc￾tance predicted by this wor…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bag2: A process-portable framework for generator-based ams circuit design,

    E. Chang, J. Han, W. Bae, Z. Wang, N. Narevsky, B. Nikolic, and E. Alon, “Bag2: A process-portable framework for generator-based ams circuit design,” in 2018 IEEE Custom Integrated Circuits Conference (CICC). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–8

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Magical: Toward fully automated analog ic layout leveraging human and machine intelligence,

    B. Xu, K. Zhu, M. Liu, Y . Lin, S. Li, X. Tang, N. Sun, and D. Z. Pan, “Magical: Toward fully automated analog ic layout leveraging human and machine intelligence,” in 2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Batch Bayesian optimization via multi-objective acquisition ensemble for automated analog circuit design,

    W. Lyu, F. Yang, C. Yan, D. Zhou, and X. Zeng, “Batch Bayesian optimization via multi-objective acquisition ensemble for automated analog circuit design,” in Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, J. Dy and A. Krause, Eds., vol. 80. PMLR, 10–15 Jul 2018, pp. 3306–3314. [Online]...

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Gcn-rl circuit designer: Transferable transistor sizing with graph neural networks and reinforcement learning,

    H. Wang, K. Wang, J. Yang, L. Shen, N. Sun, H.-S. Lee, and S. Han, “Gcn-rl circuit designer: Transferable transistor sizing with graph neural networks and reinforcement learning,” in 2020 57th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–6

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    Cktgnn: Circuit graph neural network for electronic design automation,

    Z. Dong, W. Cao, M. Zhang, D. Tao, Y . Chen, and X. Zhang, “Cktgnn: Circuit graph neural network for electronic design automation,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.16406

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Atom: An automatic topology synthesis framework for operational amplifiers,

    J. Shen, F. Yang, L. Shang, C. Yan, Z. Bi, D. Zhou, and X. Zeng, “Atom: An automatic topology synthesis framework for operational amplifiers,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    A data-driven analog circuit synthesizer with automatic topology selection and sizing,

    S. Poddar, A. Budak, L. Zhao, C.-H. Hsu, S. Maji, K. Zhu, Y . Jia, and D. Z. Pan, “A data-driven analog circuit synthesizer with automatic topology selection and sizing,” in 2024 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    work page 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Ladac: Large language model-driven auto-designer for analog circuits,

    C. Liu, Y . Liu, Y . Du, and L. Du, “Ladac: Large language model-driven auto-designer for analog circuits,” Authorea Preprints, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    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

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ado-llm: Analog design bayesian optimization with in-context learning of large language models,

    Y . Yin, Y . Wang, B. Xu, and P. Li, “Ado-llm: Analog design bayesian optimization with in-context learning of large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18770, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Lamagic: Language-model-based topology generation for analog integrated circuits,

    C.-C. Chang, Y . Shen, S. Fan, J. Li, S. Zhang, N. Cao, Y . Chen, and X. Zhang, “Lamagic: Language-model-based topology generation for analog integrated circuits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18269 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Analoggenie: A generative engine for automatic discovery of analog circuit topologies,

    J. Gao, W. Cao, J. Yang, and X. Zhang, “Analoggenie: A generative engine for automatic discovery of analog circuit topologies,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00205, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gcn-rl circuit designer: Transferable transistor sizing with graph neural networks and reinforcement learning,

    H. Wang, K. Wang, J. Yang, L. Shen, N. Sun, H.-S. Lee, and S. Han, “Gcn-rl circuit designer: Transferable transistor sizing with graph neural networks and reinforcement learning,” in 2020 57th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  7. [15]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics,

    J. Sohl-Dickstein, E. Weiss, N. Maheswaranathan, and S. Ganguli, “Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2015, pp. 2256–2265

    2015

  8. [16]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11239

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion models,

    J. Ho, W. Chan, C. Saharia, J. Whang, R. Gao, A. Gritsenko, D. P. Kingma, B. Poole, M. Norouzi, D. J. Fleet, and T. Salimans, “Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion models,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.02303

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, “High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.10752

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to- image diffusion models without specific tuning,

    Y . Guo, C. Yang, A. Rao, Z. Liang, Y . Wang, Y . Qiao, M. Agrawala, D. Lin, and B. Dai, “Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to- image diffusion models without specific tuning,” 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Grand: Graph neural diffusion,

    B. Chamberlain, J. Rowbottom, M. I. Gorinova, M. Bronstein, S. Webb, and E. Rossi, “Grand: Graph neural diffusion,” in International confer- ence on machine learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 1407–1418

    2021

  13. [21]

    Generative diffusion models on graphs: Methods and applications,

    C. Liu, W. Fan, Y . Liu, J. Li, H. Li, H. Liu, J. Tang, and Q. Li, “Generative diffusion models on graphs: Methods and applications,”

  14. [22]

    Digress: Discrete denoising diffusion for graph generation,

    C. Vignac, I. Krawczuk, A. Siraudin, B. Wang, V . Cevher, and P. Frossard, “Digress: Discrete denoising diffusion for graph generation,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14734

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Using denoising diffusion probabilistic models to solve the inverse sizing problem of analog integrated circuits,

    P. Eid, F. Azevedo, N. Lourenc ¸o, and R. Martins, “Using denoising diffusion probabilistic models to solve the inverse sizing problem of analog integrated circuits,” AEU-International Journal of Electronics and Communications, vol. 195, p. 155767, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Compre- hensive application of denoising diffusion probabilistic models towards the automation of analog integrated circuit sizing,

    F. P. de Azevedo, N. C. C. Lourenc ¸o, and R. M. F. Martins, “Compre- hensive application of denoising diffusion probabilistic models towards the automation of analog integrated circuit sizing,” Expert Systems with Applications, p. 128414, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    P. E. Allen and D. R. Holberg, CMOS analog circuit design . Elsevier, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising diffusion implicit models,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02502

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Transconductance with capacitances feedback compensation for multistage amplifiers,

    X. Peng and W. Sansen, “Transconductance with capacitances feedback compensation for multistage amplifiers,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 1514–1520, 2005

    2005

  20. [28]

    Analysis of multistage amplifier-frequency compensation,

    K. N. Leung and P. K. Mok, “Analysis of multistage amplifier-frequency compensation,” IEEE transactions on circuits and systems I: fundamen- tal theory and applications , vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 1041–1056, 2001

    2001

  21. [29]

    Design-oriented analysis for miller compensation and its application to multistage amplifier design,

    W. Qu, S. Singh, Y . Lee, Y .-S. Son, and G.-H. Cho, “Design-oriented analysis for miller compensation and its application to multistage amplifier design,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits , vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 517–527, 2016

    2016

  22. [2023]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02591

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02591

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.