Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

SPECS: Speciated Evolutionary Circuit Synthesis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A speciation-based genetic algorithm jointly evolves analog circuit topology and sizing, reaching 100% success on cube-root synthesis where the strongest baseline achieved 22%.

desk verdict Solid NEAT-for-circuits method with strong results, but the headline advantage is undercut by hyperparameters tuned on the same benchmark tasks and a couple of overstatements in the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14027 v1 pith:G24C3YFH submitted 2026-07-15 cs.NE

Yağ{i}z Gençer , Stefan Uhlich , Andrea Bonetti , Arun Venkitaraman , Chia-Yu Hsieh , Lorenzo Servadei This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NE
keywords analogcircuitsynthesisevolutionaryalgorithmgeneticspeciationNEATtopologycomponentsizingNgspicesimulation
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 a NEAT-inspired genetic algorithm, adapted to analog circuits, can automatically find both the topology and the component values of circuits that compute squaring, cubing, square root, and cube root more reliably and more accurately than existing synthesizers. The central idea is to encode circuits as genomes with component, net, and connection genes, use innovation IDs to align genomes, and use speciation to protect novel circuit motifs from being eliminated prematurely. On the four benchmark tasks, the authors report success rates up to 100% on cube root, against 22% for the strongest prior grammar-based method, and lower mean absolute error on all tasks. A sympathetic reader would care because analog circuit design remains heavily manual, and reliable automated joint topology-and-sizing search has been a long-standing goal.

What carries the argument

The central object is the circuit genome: component genes (type, pin count, parameters), net genes (input, output, supply, ground, internal), and connection genes that pair a specific component pin with a net and carry an innovation ID. Innovation IDs, assigned globally when a connection pattern first appears, allow two genomes to be aligned historically, producing a distance metric whose four weighted terms (excess, disjoint, parameter mismatch, component mismatch) drive speciation. Crossover inherits the fitter parent's topology; structural mutations (Add Component, Delete Component, Split Net, Rewire) are constrained to avoid floating nets, keeping every candidate electrically valid; and

What would settle it

A concrete check: re-run SPECS with the best hyperparameters on two held-out analog tasks (e.g., a sine shaper and an exponential function) without any task-specific tuning, and compare success rates against the strongest grammar-based baseline; if the gap collapses to near zero, the reliability advantage is an artifact of tuning. Alternatively, re-run all baselines under the identical seed and Ngspice budget protocol and verify the reported success rates and MAEs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, SPECS claims that an evolutionary process starting from single-component circuits, with mutation operators that respect wiring constraints (no floating nets) and a speciation mechanism based on genome distance, can discover compact, electrically valid analog circuits that implement prescribed input-output functions. The method reportedly outperforms four previously published joint synthesis approaches across all four computational tasks, with the largest reliability gap on cube root: 100% success rate versus 22% for the strongest baseline. The average number of components in the best circuits is about 47 for both SPECS and the strongest baseline, so the improvement is attri

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the benchmark comparisons are apples-to-apples; in particular, that the reported advantage is not an artifact of having tuned the main hyperparameters on the same four tasks used for evaluation, and that the published baseline numbers come from the same protocol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Automated analog design could move beyond fixed topologies to arbitrary component libraries, since the genome and operators are component-agnostic.
  • If the reliability claim holds, evolutionary synthesis becomes usable as a practical tool, not just a one-run curiosity.
  • The same framework should extend to MOS transistors, capacitors, inductors, and diodes, and to tasks like amplifiers, filters, and oscillators, which the paper lists as future work.
  • The speciation ablation (S=1 worse than S=4) suggests that protecting novel motifs is a general search principle applicable beyond circuits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The main hyperparameters (N=400, S=4, rho_parent=0.25) were selected by grid search on the same four tasks used for final evaluation; this tuning-to-test likely inflates the reported margins, and the paper's phrase 'without extensive tuning' in the conclusion is not supported by that protocol.
  • A fairer evaluation would hold out tasks for hyperparameter selection or use nested cross-validation; the gap between 100% and 22% success on cube root is large enough that it may survive, but the exact margin is likely optimistic.
  • The distance coefficients c1..c4 are all set to 0.25 by intuition; making them adaptive or learning them could change speciation dynamics.
  • Since the same configuration works across four tasks, a direct testable extension is to run SPECS on two unseen functions (e.g., sine or exponential shaping) with the same hyperparameters and check whether the reliability advantage transfers.
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 proposes SPECS, a NEAT-inspired evolutionary algorithm for automated analog circuit synthesis with joint topology and sizing. The genome is decomposed into component, net, and connection genes with innovation IDs; mutations include add/delete component, split net, rewire, and two sizing operators, constrained to avoid floating nets; a distance metric based on excess/disjoint connections, parameter and component mismatch feeds an adaptive speciation scheme. Experiments on four computational tasks (square, cube, square root, cube root) compare against GraCo-ES, SPICEMixer/SPICEMixer++, ACID-GE, and ACID-MGE, reporting higher success rates and lower mean absolute error, e.g., 100% SR vs 22% on cube root versus ACID-MGE. A 64-point grid search over the three main hyperparameters is described.

Significance. The algorithmic contribution is well specified and the domain-specific operators are plausible. If the reported results survive an unbiased evaluation protocol, SPECS would be a strong practical synthesizer: it produces valid topologies throughout evolution, protects novel structures through speciation, and is considerably more reliable across runs than the strongest grammar-based baseline on the cube-root task. The artifact containing netlists and schematics is a useful addition. The central weakness is that the hyperparameter configuration is selected on the same four benchmark tasks used for the final comparison, so the current evidence does not support the paper's generalization claim; the 'without extensive tuning' assertion in Sec. 5 is contradicted by the grid search in Sec. 4.2.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Table 1; Sec. 5] The three main hyperparameters (N, S, rho_parent) are selected by grid search on exactly the four tasks used for the final evaluation. Table 1 reports z-scores computed from runs on 'all four tasks'; the best configuration is then used for all rows in Tables 3-4. The abstract's 'outperforms' claim therefore compares the best-of-64 configuration against baselines using their default configurations, and the Sec. 5 sentence 'the same parameter configuration proved effective across all tasks without extensive tuning' is directly contradicted by the grid search. This is a selection-on-test issue: the reported SR/MAE gains, including 100% vs 22% on cube root, are likely inflated. Please use a held-out selection procedure (e.g., tune on two tasks and report on the other two, or nested validation) and report the full grid distribution, or substantially weaken the generalization claim.
  2. [Sec. 4.4, Tables 3-4] The comparison against ACID-GE/ACID-MGE relies on published numbers from [22]. The paper states the protocol is 'exactly the same' but does not itemize the settings (stopping criterion, simulator version, component library, elite handling, post-processing such as parallel-resistor simplification). If any differ, the direction of the difference is unknown. Please either run the baselines with the identical harness or list the matching settings explicitly. This is load-bearing because ACID-MGE is the strongest baseline and the cube-root gap drives the abstract claim.
  3. [Sec. 4.4, Tables 3-4] No uncertainty estimates or significance tests are given for the headline SR/MAE comparisons. On square root, SPECS's mean MAE SD (3.68±7.62 mV) overlaps ACID-MGE's (4.01±2.47 mV); on squaring, SPECS's min MAE (0.09 mV) exceeds ACID-MGE's (0.08 mV). The statement that SPECS 'consistently outperforms in all aggregate metrics across all tasks' is stronger than the table supports. Add confidence intervals or bootstrap tests, and qualify claims where differences are within noise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] The GraCo-ES rows appear to lack NCBC values, while the text cites 'NCBC of 2 to 6'. Please either fill in the values or reconcile the statement with the table.
  2. [Sec. 4.3] SPICEMixer++ is an unpublished variant; please cite or specify the exact operator set used, since the paper later draws conclusions from it.
  3. [Sec. 5] The statement that SPECS is 'fully compatible with arbitrary component types' overstates the evidence; only BJTs and resistors were tested.
  4. [Sec. 4.1] The 'success' definition depends on a 5% tolerance. The sensitivity of the SR comparisons to this threshold is not discussed; a sentence acknowledging this would improve the reporting.
  5. [Sec. 3.3] The distance formula divides by L = max(n1,n2). Clarify the behavior when one genome has zero connection genes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; minor self-citation in benchmarks and hyperparameter tuning on the test tasks raise validity concerns but do not make the results circular.

full rationale

The paper's central results come from Ngspice simulations, not from an algebraic reduction of outputs back into inputs. The fitness function (1 - E), the MAE metric, and the success criterion are all defined a priori; the reported SR and MAE values are direct measurements of evolved circuits, not quantities equivalent by construction to any fitted parameter. The distance metric in Sec. 3.3 and the speciation procedure are also defined before any results are reported, and no equation in the paper derives the performance numbers from the genome representation or the distance coefficients. The main validity concern is hyperparameter selection: Sec. 4.2 performs a 64-configuration grid search on the same four tasks used for evaluation, and the selected configuration is then used to produce the reported results, while Sec. 5 says the configuration worked 'without extensive tuning.' This is a tuning-to-test-set / external-validity issue, not circularity, because the reported values are simulation outcomes rather than quantities statistically forced by the selection criterion. There is also minor self-citation: GraCo [23] and SPICEMixer [24] are authored by overlapping authors and used as benchmarks, but the paper also compares against external ACID-GE and ACID-MGE [21,22], and the self-authored benchmarks are not used to justify the method's correctness. Thus no load-bearing derivation step reduces to its own input; the score of 2 reflects the minor self-citation and the tuning concern, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its assumptions are domain assumptions about simulation fidelity, benchmark validity, and the sufficiency of the component library, plus the ad hoc design choice that NEAT-style speciation transfers to circuit search. The main free parameters are the hyperparameters, several of which are tuned on the test tasks.

free parameters (8)
  • Population size N = 400
    Selected via grid search over {50,100,200,400} on the four evaluation tasks (Sec 4.2).
  • Target species number S = 4
    Selected via grid search; S=4 gave lowest z-score (Sec 4.2).
  • Parent selection fraction rho_parent = 0.25
    Selected via grid search (Sec 4.2).
  • Compatibility threshold delta_t = 0.75
    Fixed by intuition, not optimized (Sec 4.2).
  • Stagnation threshold = 10
    Fixed by intuition, not optimized (Sec 4.2).
  • Elite survival fraction rho_elite = 0.1
    Fixed by intuition, not optimized (Sec 4.2).
  • Max number of components = 50
    Fixed by intuition, not optimized (Sec 4.1).
  • Distance coefficients c1..c4 = 0.25 each
    Fixed equal weights, not optimized (Sec 3.3).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ngspice transient simulations accurately model the behavior of generated circuits in the fixed test fixture.
    All fitness and success metrics are derived from these simulations (Sec 4.1); any simulator inaccuracy propagates to all reported results.
  • domain assumption The 21 uniformly spaced fitting points and 5% tolerance define the intended circuit function sufficiently.
    Inherited from [22]; the evaluation protocol is the entire benchmark.
  • ad hoc to paper NEAT's innovation-ID-based speciation is an effective search mechanism when transferred to analog circuit topology.
    This is the paper's core design choice; no proof that it is optimal, only empirical results.
  • domain assumption The component library (default SPICE NPN/PNP BJTs and resistors, 1 ohm to 1e9 ohm) is sufficient to synthesize the four functions.
    If the library is insufficient, the comparisons would be limited by library rather than method.
  • domain assumption The weighted fitness function (miss weight 10) reliably guides evolution toward successful circuits.
    This weighting is inherited from [22] but is a choice that shapes search.
  • domain assumption Avoiding floating nets is sufficient to keep circuits electrically valid and physically meaningful.
    The paper claims validity throughout evolution but only enforces floating-net constraints (Sec 3.2.1); other invalid topologies (e.g., undefined operating points) are not explicitly prevented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SPECS: Speciated Evolutionary Circuit Synthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G24C3YFH

@misc{pith2026260714027,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SPECS: Speciated Evolutionary Circuit Synthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G24C3YFH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14027}
}
read the original abstract

We propose SPECS, a genetic algorithm for automated analog circuit synthesis with joint topology and sizing optimization. SPECS is inspired by NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Topologies (NEAT), an evolutionary algorithm originally developed to synthesize neural networks. By reformulating the genome representation and adapting the genetic operators to the analog circuit domain, we successfully transfer the core principles of NEAT to analog circuit synthesis. Circuit-specific wiring constraints are incorporated to ensure valid and physically meaningful designs throughout the evolutionary process, and speciation is used to preserve innovation while maintaining population diversity. We evaluate the proposed method on a set of computational circuit synthesis tasks consisting of square, cube, square root, and cube root functions. Experimental results demonstrate that SPECS outperforms benchmark methods across all tasks in both solution quality and reliability. The synthesized circuits and their schematics are available in the supplementary repository.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14027 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Genome representation of an example circuit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Reproduction mechanism in SPECS. (a) Elite (green) genomes are copied unchanged from each species to the genome [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Transient responses of the best circuits found by SPECS and ACID-MGE on the computational circuit synthesis tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Introducing modularity and homology in gram- matical evolution to address the analog electronic circuit design problem,

    F. Castejón and E. J. Carmona, “Introducing modularity and homology in gram- matical evolution to address the analog electronic circuit design problem, ”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 137 275–137 292, 2020

    2020

  2. [1]

    Evolving neural networks through augment- ing topologies,

    K. O. Stanley and R. Miikkulainen, “Evolving neural networks through augment- ing topologies, ”Evolutionary Computation, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 99–127, 2002

    2002

  3. [2]

    Jespers and B

    P. Jespers and B. Murmann,Systematic Design of Analog CMOS Circuits: Using Pre-Computed Lookup Tables. Cambridge University Press, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.ch/books?id=9GQ3DwAAQBAJ

    2017

  4. [3]

    Razavi,Design of Analog CMOS Integrated Circuits, 2nd ed

    B. Razavi,Design of Analog CMOS Integrated Circuits, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Education, 2017

    2017

  5. [4]

    L. Wang, Y. Chang, and K. Cheng,Electronic Design Automation: Synthesis, Verification, and Test, ser. Systems on Silicon. Morgan Kaufmann, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.ch/books?id=3XBe7dLb5NEC

    2009

  6. [5]

    Lavagno, L

    L. Lavagno, L. Scheffer, and G. Martin,EDA for IC Implementation, Circuit Design, and Process Technology, ser. Electronic Design Automation for Integrated Circuits Hdbk. CRC Press, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.ch/books?id=MUHMBQAAQBAJ

    2018

  7. [6]

    Barros, J

    M. Barros, J. Guilherme, and N. Horta,Analog Circuits and Systems Optimization based on Evolutionary Computation Techniques, 01 2010, vol. 294

    2010

  8. [7]

    Applications of evolutionary algorithms in the design automation of analog integrated circuits,

    E. Tlelo-Cuautle, G.-G. I, M. Duarte-Villaseñor, L. de la Fraga, F.-B. G, G. Reyes Sal- gado, C. A. Reyes-Garcia, and G. Gómez, “Applications of evolutionary algorithms in the design automation of analog integrated circuits, ”Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 10, 12 2010

    2010

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Analog circuit optimization system based on hybrid evolutionary algorithms,

    B. Liu, Y. Wang, Z. Yu, L. Liu, M. Li, Z. Wang, J. Lu, and F. V. Fernández, “Analog circuit optimization system based on hybrid evolutionary algorithms, ”Integration, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 137–148, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016...

    2009

  2. [9]

    An analog circuit design and optimiza- tion system with rule-guided genetic algorithm,

    R. Zhou, P. Poechmueller, and Y. Wang, “An analog circuit design and optimiza- tion system with rule-guided genetic algorithm, ”IEEE Transactions on Computer- Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 5182–5192, 2022

    2022

  3. [10]

    A synthesis system for analog circuits based on evolutionary search and topological reuse,

    T. Dastidar, P. Chakrabarti, and P. Ray, “A synthesis system for analog circuits based on evolutionary search and topological reuse, ”IEEE Transactions on Evolu- tionary Computation, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 211–224, 2005

    2005

  4. [11]

    Analog circuit design using genetic algorithms,

    K. V. Noren and J. E. Ross, “Analog circuit design using genetic algorithms, ” 2002. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:13454328

    2002

  5. [12]

    Analog circuit design optimization based on evolutionary algorithms,

    M. Barari, H. R. Karimi, and F. Razaghian, “Analog circuit design optimization based on evolutionary algorithms, ”Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2014, no. 1, p. 593684, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/abs/10.1155/2014/593684

    2014 doi

  6. [13]

    A hybrid ga-sqp algorithm for analog circuits sizing,

    Y. Firas, L. Labrak, F. Frantz, R. Daviot, A. Nacer, and I. O’Connor, “A hybrid ga-sqp algorithm for analog circuits sizing, ”Circuits and Systems, vol. 03, pp. 146–152, 01 2012

    2012

  7. [14]

    Performance evaluation of evolutionary algorithms for analog integrated circuit design optimisation,

    R. Rashid, G. Raghunath, V. Badugu, and N. Nambath, “Performance evaluation of evolutionary algorithms for analog integrated circuit design optimisation, ” Microelectronics Journal, vol. 141, p. 105983, Nov. 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mejo.2023.105983

    2023

  8. [15]

    Machine learning driven global optimisation framework for analog circuit design,

    R. Rashid, K. Krishna, C. P. George, and N. Nambath, “Machine learning driven global optimisation framework for analog circuit design, ”Microelectronics Journal, vol. 151, p. 106362, Sep. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.mejo.2024.106362

    2024

  9. [16]

    Circuit-centric genetic algorithm (cga) for analog and radio-frequency circuit optimization,

    M. Kwon, Y. Lee, and I. Song, “Circuit-centric genetic algorithm (cga) for analog and radio-frequency circuit optimization, ” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17938

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Darwin: Cmos opamp synthesis by means of a genetic algorithm,

    D. L. Wim Kruiskamp, “Darwin: Cmos opamp synthesis by means of a genetic algorithm, ” in32nd Design Automation Conference, 1995, pp. 433–438

    1995

  11. [18]

    Gapsys: A ga-based tool for automated passive analog circuit synthesis,

    A. Das and R. Vemuri, “Gapsys: A ga-based tool for automated passive analog circuit synthesis, ” in2007 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), 2007, pp. 2702–2705

    2007

  12. [19]

    Automated design of both the topology and sizing of analog electrical circuits using genetic programming,

    J. R. Koza, F. H. Bennett, D. Andre, and M. A. Keane, “Automated design of both the topology and sizing of analog electrical circuits using genetic programming, ”

  13. [20]

    Automated analog circuit design using two-layer genetic programming,

    F. Wang, Y. Li, L. Li, and K. Li, “Automated analog circuit design using two-layer genetic programming, ”Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 185, no. 2, pp. 1087–1097, 2007, special Issue on Intelligent Computing Theory and Methodology. [Online]. Available: https://www.s...

    2007

  14. [21]

    Automatic design of analog electronic circuits using grammatical evolution,

    F. Castejon and E. Carmona, “Automatic design of analog electronic circuits using grammatical evolution, ”Applied Soft Computing, vol. 62, pp. 1003–1018, 01 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Graco – a graph composer for integrated circuits,

    S. Uhlich, A. Bonetti, A. Venkitaraman, A. Momeni, R. Matsuo, C.-Y. Hsieh, E. Ohbuchi, and L. Servadei, “Graco – a graph composer for integrated circuits, ”

  16. [24]

    Spicemixer – netlist-level circuit evolution,

    S. Uhlich, A. Bonetti, A. Venkitaraman, C.-Y. Hsieh, M. Gürsoy, R. Matsuo, and L. Servadei, “Spicemixer – netlist-level circuit evolution, ” 06 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01497v1

    2025

  17. [25]

    Parallel genetic algorithms: A useful survey,

    T. Harada and E. Alba, “Parallel genetic algorithms: A useful survey, ”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 53, pp. 1–39, 08 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Sudholt,Parallel Evolutionary Algorithms

    D. Sudholt,Parallel Evolutionary Algorithms. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2015, pp. 929–959. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 662-43505-2_46

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    The island model genetic algorithm: On separabil- ity, population size and convergence,

    D. Whitley and S. Rana, “The island model genetic algorithm: On separabil- ity, population size and convergence, ”Journal of Computing and Information Technology, vol. 7, 12 1998

    1998

  20. [28]

    Automated synthesis of computational circuits using genetic programming,

    J. Koza, F. Bennett III, J. Lohn, F. Dunlap, M. Keane, and D. Andre, “Automated synthesis of computational circuits using genetic programming, ” 09 1997

    1997

  21. [29]

    Iterative refinement of computational circuits using genetic programming

    M. Streeter, M. Keane, and J. Koza, “Iterative refinement of computational circuits using genetic programming. ” 01 2002, pp. 877–884

    2002

  22. [30]

    Challenging the evolutionary strategy for synthesis of analogue computational circuits,

    Y. Sapargaliyev and T. Kalganova, “Challenging the evolutionary strategy for synthesis of analogue computational circuits, ”JSEA, vol. 3, pp. 1032–1039, 01 2010

    2010

  23. [31]

    Open-ended evolution to discover analogue circuits for beyond conven- tional applications,

    ——, “Open-ended evolution to discover analogue circuits for beyond conven- tional applications, ”Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, vol. 13, 12 2012

    2012

  24. [32]

    Analog electronic circuit synthesis using simulated annealing and geometric circuit evolution,

    L. Muttoni and A. Veiga, “Analog electronic circuit synthesis using simulated annealing and geometric circuit evolution, ”Journal of Microwaves, Optoelectronics and Electromagnetic Applications, vol. 22, pp. 13–32, 03 2023

    2023

  25. [1996]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15045531

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15045531

  26. [2025]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13890

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13890

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.