Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 34 references

AaLLM: An End-to-End Analog Circuit Design Framework from Topology Generation to Sizing Using Large Language Models

T0 review · 5 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims AaLLM, an open-source multi-agent LLM pipeline, can take user specs and return sized netlists with novel valid topologies, using 3x–4.5x fewer SPICE calls and about 40x less wall-clock time.

desk verdict A genuine integration of topology generation and sizing with a clever tri-agent loop, but the spec resolver can silently alter user targets and the evaluation is too thin to support the headline claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13472 v1 pith:MHSIW2HS submitted 2026-08-13 eess.SY cs.AIcs.SY

Mohammed Ayman Habib , Rylan Hart , Morteza Fayazi This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.AIcs.SY
keywords analogcircuitdesignautomationlargelanguagemodelstopologygenerationsizingretrieval-augmentedmulti-agentsystemSPICE-in-the-loopoptimizationbipartitecomponent-nodematrix
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

At issue is whether a single open-source LLM pipeline can replace the fragmented, manual workflow of analog circuit design by taking user performance specifications and returning a sized netlist—both the topology and the component values. The paper claims that AaLLM does this, and that its combination of an automatically built retrieval-augmented knowledge base, a fine-tuned topology generator, and a three-agent sizing loop makes the process dramatically cheaper: 3x to 4.5x fewer SPICE simulations and about 40x less wall-clock time than a state-of-the-art agentic sizing workflow, with matched or better design quality. It also claims to generate novel, electrically valid topologies whose figure of merit is comparable to known textbook designs and up to 3x higher in some corners. If the claims hold, the practical consequence is that a non-expert could explore topology and sizing trade-offs from a natural-language spec without hand-collected libraries or an external optimizer. The central empirical assertions are that AaLLM meets all four target specs on 22 of 24 runs for both a canonical and a novel two-stage op-amp, and that it sizes three active-filter topologies to spec.

What carries the argument

The argument rides on four coupled mechanisms. First, the bipartite component-node matrix encodes any circuit as a fixed-length token sequence, which decouples topology from sizing and lets the decoder produce syntactically valid netlists under position-aware constraints. Second, a fine-tuned encoder-decoder language model, trained in three curriculum stages with progressively masked component types and connections, maps the resolved spec to these matrices and can recombine connections to form novel topologies. Third, the RAG module augments topology selection and sizing with retrieved context using two indexes—dense semantic vectors and BM25 exact-term matching—merged by weighted reciprocal-rank fusion, so the agents are grounded in circuit theory rather than pure pattern recall. Fourth, the tri-agent sizing loop separates diagnosis, strategy, and parameter adjustment, with an Evaluator that only invokes its LLM when it detects stagnation or periodic audits; a curriculum controller promotes the loop from DC to AC to transient phases. A specification resolver sits upstream and projects every user constraint onto the model's fine-tuning range, returning a single midpoint target that all later stages condition on.

What would settle it

Take any user spec deliberately outside the undisclosed fine-tuning range—for example, a gain floor higher than every target in Fig. 2—run the full AaLLM pipeline, and compare the final SPICE-measured values against the user's original inequality instead of the resolver's midpoint; if the original spec fails while the resolved target passes, the end-to-end promise is broken for out-of-range inputs. A second check is to rerun the 24-spec benchmark with the resolver disabled and see whether the 22/24 success rates and the 40x wall-clock speedup survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated the way a sympathetic reader would state it, the paper's discovery is that analog design can be treated as two coupled language tasks over one shared representation. A fine-tuned encoder-decoder model generates candidate topologies as fixed-length bipartite component-node matrices, while a three-agent loop—a Designer that mutates parameters, a Critic that diagnoses which components cause spec failures, and an Evaluator that decides strategy and can ban or override parameter changes—iterates against SPICE until the resolved specs are met. The RAG module grounds both stages in retrieved textbook and paper knowledge, and a curriculum controller sequences optimization from DC biasing through AC and transient analysis. On the reported benchmarks, the framework achieves Pass@1 of 100 percent for structural and electrical validity across 24 op-amp target specs, meets all specs on 22 of 24 runs for a novel two-stage topology and 22 of 24 for a canonical Miller OTA, and improves gain-bandwidth product by 73 percent with 40 percent fewer iterations in the ablation against its own ablated variants. The paper also reports beating a state-of-the-art sizing workflow by 4.5x in SPICE calls and 40x in wall-clock time at the same technology node, and beating a competitive multi-agent framework on 8 of 8 circuits versus 4 of 8 with 2.79x fewer simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The resolver silently replaces user requirements outside the fine-tuning range with in-range boundary values, so the framework can report a design as meeting specs when the original request was never actually satisfied; the paper does not disclose the training range, making it impossible to tell whether the reported benchmark specs were clamped.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If AaLLM's results are right, analog circuit design for op-amps and active filters becomes a push-button LLM workflow from natural-language specs to a sized, SPICE-validated netlist.
  • The demonstrated novel topologies with comparable FoM imply that the search over circuit structures need no longer be confined to a hand-catalogued library, opening a path to automated topology innovation.
  • The curriculum-based tri-agent loop, which resolves coupled specs in DC, AC, then transient phases, is a template for other iterative design problems where failures must be traced to components and strategies must adapt.
  • The reported 3x–4.5x reduction in SPICE calls and 40x wall-clock reduction, if reproduced, would make agentic LLM sizing competitive with simulation-heavy optimization for small analog blocks.
  • Because the pipeline is open-source, independent groups can test whether the speedups generalize beyond the op-amp and filter families shown.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The resolver's clamping behavior implies that the claimed 'meets user specs' success rates are only guaranteed inside the undisclosed fine-tuning range; for out-of-range requests, the reported metric is the resolved target, not the user's requirement. The open-source release should expose the training range or flag clamped specs explicitly.
  • The same fixed-length bipartite-matrix representation and tri-agent loop should transfer to other analog blocks with well-defined node sets—for instance, comparators, LDOs, or VCOs—but the paper only demonstrates op-amps and active filters, so this remains a testable extension.
  • A clean way to isolate the contribution of the sizing architecture would be to freeze AaLLM's topology generator and run the tri-agent loop on topologies produced by other generators; the paper's comparisons mix topology source with sizing method.
  • If the 40x wall-clock speedup is reproduced independently, it suggests that for small analog blocks the bottleneck is no longer SPICE simulation cost but the quality of the LLMs' diagnostic reasoning, shifting future work toward critic and evaluator design.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper presents AaLLM, an open-source end-to-end framework that uses LLMs for both analog circuit topology generation and sizing. Topology generation is performed by a fine-tuned FLAN-T5 model that outputs bipartite component-node matrices; a RAG module with semantic and keyword retrieval selects among candidate topologies; and sizing uses a tri-agent loop (Designer, Critic, Evaluator) with curriculum-based optimization and SPICE-in-the-loop. The paper reports Pass@1=100% on a 24-spec OPAMP benchmark, FoM values for novel and canonical topologies, 3x-4.5x reductions in SPICE calls and a 40x wall-clock reduction versus AnaFlow, comparisons against Atelier, and sizing results for three active filters.

Significance. If the central claims hold, AaLLM is a useful open-source contribution: it is end-to-end in the sense of going from user specifications to a sized netlist, uses a structured bipartite-matrix representation that guarantees syntactically valid topology generation, and automates knowledge-base construction via RAG. The tri-agent architecture with a separate Evaluator is a reasonable design, and the active-filter results suggest some generality beyond OPAMPs. However, the empirical validation is narrow (12 sizing tasks, two seeds, one novel topology, single-run comparisons for two baselines), and the unresolved specification-resolver issue directly affects whether the system meets the user's original constraints. The significance is therefore conditional on closing the specification-resolution gap and broadening the evaluation.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III-C, Eqs. (2)-(3), Fig. 2, Table IV] The specification resolver clamps user constraints that fall outside the fine-tuning range to the nearest training-range boundary, but the training range [t_k, t̄_k] is never reported anywhere in the manuscript. Consequently, the 24 benchmark targets in Fig. 2 and the 12 sizing tasks in Table IV may have been resolved to modified targets rather than the user-requested constraints, which conflicts with Eq. (1) and the abstract's claim that AaLLM 'takes user specs as input and outputs the appropriate netlist.' The Pass@1=100% and 22/24 sizing-success numbers do not distinguish clamped from unclamped tasks. Please report the fine-tuning range for each spec, state which benchmark tasks (if any) triggered clamping, and either re-evaluate on the original unclamped targets or explicitly redefine the benchmark as targeting the resolved specs.
  2. [Table IV] The headline claim of 'FoM up to 3x higher for certain circuits' rests on Task 11, where the canonical Miller OTA failed one of two seeds (FoM 0.108 vs. 0.318 for the novel topology). The mean FoM across the 12 tasks is actually lower for the novel topology (0.394 vs. 0.454 for the canonical Miller OTA). The paper should report per-seed FoM values rather than a best-of-two-seeds aggregation, and it should not present a single task as evidence that AaLLM-generated topologies outperform known topologies.
  3. [Section IV.D] The claimed 4.5x reduction in SPICE calls and 40x reduction in wall-clock time versus AnaFlow are derived from a single run on a single circuit (two SPICE calls vs. nine), with no seed repetition, no task variation, and no details of the wall-clock measurement protocol. Similarly, the Atelier comparison uses only four tasks and two seeds, and because Atelier delegates sizing to CMA-ES, it is not a head-to-head test of an LLM-based sizer. Please provide multiple runs with standard deviations for both baselines and specify the exact time-budget protocol, including how the 200-4000s range was allocated.
  4. [Section IV.A] Electrical validity is defined solely as 'successful SPICE convergence with positive gain (dB).' This criterion is too weak to establish that a generated topology is a functional op-amp: it excludes stability, output swing, input common-mode range, DC operating-point sanity, and other standard performance checks. Using this weak criterion inflates the Pass@1=100% claim. Please either define a more stringent set of electrical validity checks for the topology stage or rephrase the claim to state the pass rate under this explicitly weak criterion.
  5. [Sections III.D and IV.B] The paper repeatedly states that AaLLM generates topologies that 'do not appear in the training corpus' and calls the circuits in Fig. 3 'novel,' but it provides no verification procedure, such as a graph-isomorphism check against the training set or a structural-distance metric. Without such a check, the novelty claim is unsupported. Please add a concrete novelty verification method and report its outcome for the two specific topologies shown in Fig. 3.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'up to 3x higher for certain circuits' should be qualified as being from one task, and the mean FoM comparison across all tasks should be stated, because the body shows the novel topology has a lower average FoM.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The user-defined weights w_k and the small constant ε are not given values anywhere in the paper; please provide default values and a sensitivity analysis for the weighting.
  3. [Table IV caption] The caption says 'best of two seeds' for the canonical Miller OTA, but the table reports FoM and Met counts that mix both seeds; clarify how FoM aggregates the two seeds (mean of successful runs, minimum, or other rule).
  4. [Table III] The ablation study reports single runs with no seed repetition, so the claimed 73% UGB improvement for the full AaLLM configuration is not shown to be statistically meaningful.
  5. [Section IV.C] The statement that gain 30-70 dB targets are 'the hardest to achieve' is not justified by any metric; please provide the supporting criterion or remove the claim.
  6. [Eq. (5)] The RAG fusion weight α is never specified; please report its value and how it was chosen, as the performance of the retrieval step likely depends on it.
  7. [Section IV.D (Atelier comparison)] The phrase 'wall-clock-matched conditions' needs a precise protocol; the stated 200-4000s budget is a wide range and the paper does not describe how the budget was determined or allocated per circuit.
  8. [Open-source link] The repository link is an anonymous placeholder; for archival reproducibility, please provide a persistent identifier or a non-anonymous repository link in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claims rest on SPICE-verified benchmarks, not on definitional reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—that AaLLM generates valid topologies, sizes them to meet spec targets, and does so with fewer SPICE calls than prior methods—are supported by external SPICE simulations and head-to-head comparisons, not by any derivation that reduces to its own inputs. The specification resolver (Section III-C, Eqs. 2-3) does project user constraints onto the fine-tuning range and clamps out-of-range targets, which is a disclosed limitation about whether the original user spec is met, but it is not a circularity: the resolved target s* is defined from both the user's constraint and the training range, and the evaluation then measures success against that resolved target. This is a transparency and correctness concern, not a case where a prediction is equivalent to its input by construction. The fine-tuned FLAN-T5 topology generator is trained on circuit data, but the evaluation reports Pass@1 and FoM from independently simulated SPICE results; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [1], [4], [7]) appear only as background or related-work context and are not load-bearing for the paper's empirical claims. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known result is repackaged as new. The central derivation chain—user specs, resolved target, topology generation, sizing loop, SPICE validation—contains intermediate approximations, but each step is explicitly defined and none of the equations reduce to the outputs by definition. Therefore, the paper does not exhibit circularity under the specified criteria.

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

The central claims rest on several hand-chosen heuristics (RAG fusion weight, FoM weights, curriculum thresholds) and on a fine-tuned neural network whose training data is not fully documented. The most significant assumption is the spec resolver, which can replace user specs with training-range targets. These are not invented physical entities, but they are unverified modeling choices that affect every reported result.

free parameters (6)
  • RAG fusion weight alpha = not reported
    Equation (5) balances semantic and BM25 retrieval scores. The value is not given; presumably hand-tuned.
  • FLAN-T5 fine-tuned weights = trained on circuit corpus (Razavi textbook + empirical sweep)
    The topology generator is a neural network fit to data; its validity rate and novelty directly determine the main results. Training details are not specified.
  • Spec resolver midpoint targets = midpoint of intersection of user constraint and training range (Eq. 3)
    The target spec used for generation is a heuristic point, not the user's actual spec; out-of-range specs are clamped.
  • FoM weights = 1/3 each in Eq. (7)
    The figure of merit equally weights gain, UGB, and power margins. This ad hoc choice affects the comparison between novel and canonical topologies.
  • Curriculum phase thresholds = not specified
    The DC/AC/transient phase promotion and demotion tolerances are chosen by hand and never reported; they affect sizing success.
  • Physics heuristics and matching constraint (D1, D2 ablations) = not specified
    The Designer prompt includes physics heuristics and a differential-pair matching constraint (Table III). Their exact content is not given, so the ablation cannot be reproduced.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SPICE simulation with the SkyWater 130nm and ASU PTM 45nm PDKs accurately represents circuit behavior for the target specs.
    All claims of meeting specs are based on SPICE results, not silicon measurements. Invoked throughout Section IV.
  • domain assumption The bipartite component-node matrix representation can express all valid circuits in the target design space, and the fixed-length token structure guarantees syntactic validity.
    Section III-B states this as the basis for the topology generator.
  • domain assumption The training corpus (Razavi textbook and an empirical sweep) is representative of the OPAMP and active filter design space, so a model fine-tuned on it generalizes to unseen specs.
    Section IV assumes the 24 benchmark specs and filter topologies are in-distribution; no distribution analysis is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Electrical validity is sufficiently checked by successful SPICE convergence and positive gain in dB.
    Section IV-A defines electrical validity this way. A topology with positive gain need not be useful or meet any spec, so this is a weak filter.
  • domain assumption LLMs such as Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku 4.5 provide reliable reasoning, diagnosis, and parameter-change suggestions in the tri-agent loop.
    The entire sizing loop rests on the agents behaving as described; no robustness analysis across LLM versions is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The midpoint projection in the spec resolver (Eq. 2-3) yields a target that, when met, satisfies the user's original constraint set.
    For constraints inside the training range, the midpoint is inside the user's interval, so meeting it satisfies the constraint. For out-of-range constraints, the midpoint is clamped and no longer satisfies the user. This assumption is load-bearing for the end-to-end claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AaLLM: An End-to-End Analog Circuit Design Framework from Topology Generation to Sizing Using Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MHSIW2HS

@misc{pith2026260813472,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AaLLM: An End-to-End Analog Circuit Design Framework from Topology Generation to Sizing Using Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MHSIW2HS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13472}
}
read the original abstract

Analog circuit design is a time-consuming, iterative process in a nonlinear and high-dimensional design space that relies heavily on expert intuition. Among recent developments, LLMs have introduced a promising approach by bringing natural language reasoning to circuit design tasks. The majority of conventional LLM-based approaches provide fragmented solutions that focus either only on sizing or topology generation. These methods require adding specific technical knowledge manually, which is inefficient and prone to hallucinations during circuit sizing. Moreover, the inherent trade-off in meeting different specs makes current approaches iterative and tedious. Another shortcoming is the inability to create innovative topologies, which may lead to sub-optimal designs due to reliance on conventional topologies. In this paper, we present AaLLM, an open-source end-to-end multi-agent LLM workflow that takes user specs as input and outputs the appropriate netlist, encompassing both topology generation and circuit sizing. AaLLM automates the creation of a relevant knowledge base from research papers and textbooks to combat tedious manual data collection. A RAG model is implemented to emulate circuit design expertise using this knowledge base. Moreover, AaLLM uses a novel tri-agent feedback system comprising a Designer that determines circuit component values, a Critic that scrutinizes these values, and an Evaluator that minimizes circuit sizing iterations by arbitrating between the other two agents. AaLLM-generated novel topologies achieve a figure of merit (FoM) comparable to that of known topologies, and up to 3x higher for certain circuits. Testing on several circuit topologies, our results show a 3x - 4.5x decrease in the number of SPICE calls at inference when compared to SOTA multi-agent LLM pipelines. The results also show a 40x decrease in wall-clock time compared to existing approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13472 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. High-level platform architecture of AaLLM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Coverage of the 24 OPAMP target specs. Each circle represents a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Novel topologies generated and sized by AaLLM for a target design () [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Active-filter schematics sized by AaLLM. (a) Sallen-Key low-pass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Applications of Artificial Intelligence on the Modeling and Optimization for Analog and Mixed-Signal Circuits: A Review,

    M. Fayazi, Z. Colter, E. Afshari, and R. Dreslinski, “Applications of Artificial Intelligence on the Modeling and Optimization for Analog and Mixed-Signal Circuits: A Review,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 2418–2431, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    ParaGraph: Layout Parasitics and Device Parameter Prediction using Graph Neural Net- works,

    H. Ren, G. F. Kokai, W. J. Turner, and T.-S. Ku, “ParaGraph: Layout Parasitics and Device Parameter Prediction using Graph Neural Net- works,” inProceedings of the 57th ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference, ser. DAC ’20. IEEE Press, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    AutoCkt: Deep Reinforcement Learning of Analog Circuit Designs,

    K. Settaluri, A. Haj Ali, Q. Huang, K. Hakhamaneshi, and B. Nikolic, “AutoCkt: Deep Reinforcement Learning of Analog Circuit Designs,” 01 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    ORACLE: A Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning-Based Analog Circuit Design Optimizer with Large Language Models-Guided Exploration

    O. Brempong, M. A. Habib, V . Poddar, and M. Fayazi, “ORACLE: A Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning-Based Analog Circuit Design Optimizer with Large Language Models-Guided Exploration,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2608.04999, 2026

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    FASCINET: A Fully Automated Single-Board Computer Generator Using Neural Networks,

    M. Fayaziet al., “FASCINET: A Fully Automated Single-Board Computer Generator Using Neural Networks,”IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems (TCAD), 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    An Efficient Bayesian Optimization Approach for Automated Optimization of Analog Circuits,

    W. Lyu, P. Xue, F. Yang, C. Yan, Z. Hong, X. Zeng, and D. Zhou, “An Efficient Bayesian Optimization Approach for Automated Optimization of Analog Circuits,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 1954–1967, 2018

    work page 1954

  7. [7]

    AnGeL: Fully- Automated Analog Circuit Generator Using a Neural Network Assisted Semi-Supervised Learning Approach,

    M. Fayazi, M. T. Taba, E. Afshari, and R. Dreslinski, “AnGeL: Fully- Automated Analog Circuit Generator Using a Neural Network Assisted Semi-Supervised Learning Approach,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 4516–4529, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    MuaLLM: A Multimodal Large Language Model Agent for Circuit Design Assistance with Hybrid Contextual Retrieval- Augmented Generation,

    P. Abbineniet al., “MuaLLM: A Multimodal Large Language Model Agent for Circuit Design Assistance with Hybrid Contextual Retrieval- Augmented Generation,” in2026 31st Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC). IEEE, 2026, pp. 646–652

    2026

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    SINA: A Circuit Schematic Image-to-Netlist Generator Using Artificial Intelligence,

    S. Aldowaish, Y . Karumanchi, K.-C. Chiang, S. Noorzad, and M. Fayazi, “SINA: A Circuit Schematic Image-to-Netlist Generator Using Artificial Intelligence,”Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition (DATE), 2026

    2026

  2. [10]

    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, S. Riedel, and D. Kiela, “Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vo...

    2020

  3. [11]

    BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding,” in Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologi...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Attention is All you Need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is All you Need,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 30, 2017, pp. 5998–6008

    2017

  5. [13]

    AnalogSeeker: An Open-source Foundation Language Model for Analog Circuit Design,

    Z. Chenet al., “AnalogSeeker: An Open-source Foundation Language Model for Analog Circuit Design,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10409, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    LaMAGIC: Language-Model-based Topol- ogy Generation for Analog Integrated Circuits,

    C.-C. Changet al., “LaMAGIC: Language-Model-based Topol- ogy Generation for Analog Integrated Circuits,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18269, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    AMSnet-KG: A Netlist Dataset for LLM-based AMS Circuit Auto-design Using Knowledge Graph RAG,

    Y . Shiet al., “AMSnet-KG: A Netlist Dataset for LLM-based AMS Circuit Auto-design Using Knowledge Graph RAG,”ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1–37, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    AmpAgent: An LLM-based Multi-Agent System for Multi-stage Amplifier Schematic Design from Literature for Process and Performance Porting,

    C. Liuet al., “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

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    AnalogCoder: Analog Circuit Design via Training-Free Code Generation,

    Y . Laiet al., “AnalogCoder: Analog Circuit Design via Training-Free Code Generation,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 1, 2025, pp. 379–387

    2025

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    AnalogXpert: Automating Analog Topology Synthesis by Incorporating Circuit Design Expertise into Large Language Models,

    H. Zhang, S. Sun, Y . Lin, R. Wang, and J. Bian, “AnalogXpert: Automating Analog Topology Synthesis by Incorporating Circuit Design Expertise into Large Language Models,” in2025 International Sympo- sium of Electronics Design Automation (ISEDA). IEEE, 2025, pp. 772– 777

    2025

  12. [20]

    AUTOCIRCUIT-RL: Reinforcement Learning-Driven LLM for Auto- mated Circuit Topology Generation,

    P. Vijayaraghavan, L. Shi, E. Degan, V . Mukherjee, and X. Zhang, “AUTOCIRCUIT-RL: Reinforcement Learning-Driven LLM for Auto- mated Circuit Topology Generation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03122, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    AnaFlow: Agentic LLM- based Workflow for Reasoning-Driven Explainable and Sample-Efficient Analog Circuit Sizing,

    M. Ahmadzadeh, K. Chen, and G. Gielen, “AnaFlow: Agentic LLM- based Workflow for Reasoning-Driven Explainable and Sample-Efficient Analog Circuit Sizing,” in2025 IEEE/ACM International Conference On Computer Aided Design (ICCAD). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–7

    2025

  14. [22]

    AutoSizer: Automatic Sizing of Analog and Mixed-Signal Circuits via Large Language Model (LLM) Agents,

    X. Yu, D. Torbunov, S. Mandal, and Y . Ren, “AutoSizer: Automatic Sizing of Analog and Mixed-Signal Circuits via Large Language Model (LLM) Agents,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02849, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  15. [23]

    EasySize: Elastic Analog Circuit Sizing via LLM-Guided Heuristic Search,

    X. Wu, F. Hu, S. J. Babu, Y . Zhao, and X. Guo, “EasySize: Elastic Analog Circuit Sizing via LLM-Guided Heuristic Search,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.05113, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    LEDRO: LLM-Enhanced Design Space Reduction and Optimization for Analog Circuits,

    D. V . Kochar, H. Wang, A. P. Chandrakasan, and X. Zhang, “LEDRO: LLM-Enhanced Design Space Reduction and Optimization for Analog Circuits,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on LLM-Aided Design (ICLAD). IEEE, 2025, pp. 141–148

    2025

  17. [25]

    Accelerating OTA Circuit Design: Transistor Sizing Based on a Transformer Model and Precomputed Lookup Tables,

    S. Ghosh, E. Y . Gebru, C. V . Kashyap, R. Harjani, and S. S. Sapat- nekar, “Accelerating OTA Circuit Design: Transistor Sizing Based on a Transformer Model and Precomputed Lookup Tables,” in2025 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference (DATE). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–7

    2025

  18. [26]

    AnalogCoder-Pro: Unifying Analog Circuit Generation and Optimization via Multi-modal LLMs,

    Y . Laiet al., “AnalogCoder-Pro: Unifying Analog Circuit Generation and Optimization via Multi-modal LLMs,”IEEE Transactions on Computer- Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 2026

    2026

  19. [27]

    Artisan: Automated Operational Amplifier Design via Domain-specific Large Language Model,

    Z. Chen, J. Huang, Y . Liu, F. Yang, L. Shang, D. Zhou, and X. Zeng, “Artisan: Automated Operational Amplifier Design via Domain-specific Large Language Model,” inProceedings of the 61st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  20. [28]

    Atelier: An Automated Analog Circuit Design Framework via Multiple Large Language Model-Based Agents,

    J. Shenet al., “Atelier: An Automated Analog Circuit Design Framework via Multiple Large Language Model-Based Agents,”IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    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

  22. [30]

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

    P.-H. Chenet al., “MenTeR: A fully-automated Multi-agenT workflow for end-to-end RF/Analog Circuits Netlist Design,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on LLM-Aided Design (ICLAD). IEEE, 2025, pp. 124–132

    2025

  23. [31]

    CktGNN: Circuit Graph Neural Network for Electronic Design Automation,

    Z. Donget al., “CktGNN: Circuit Graph Neural Network for Electronic Design Automation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16406, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Transformers: State-of-the-Art Natural Language Pro- cessing,

    T. Wolfet al., “Transformers: State-of-the-Art Natural Language Pro- cessing,” inProceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations, 2020, pp. 38–45

    2020

  25. [33]

    Robertson and H

    S. Robertson and H. Zaragoza,The Probabilistic Relevance Framework BM25 and Beyond. Now Publishers Inc, 2009, vol. 4

    2009

  26. [34]

    SkyWater Open Source PDK 130nm Process Design Kit,

    SkyWater Technology Foundry, Google LLC, and Efabless Corpo- ration, “SkyWater Open Source PDK 130nm Process Design Kit,” https://skywater-pdk.readthedocs.io/, 2022, accessed: August 14, 2026

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.