Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

The paper claims that separating proposal from evaluation in an optimization loop—an actor suggesting search regions and a critic auditing them before Bayesian optimization explores—improves analog circuit sizing, with top-10 figure of meri

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 17:27 UTC pith:WT2V3GSD

load-bearing objection A credible role-separation idea for LLM-guided analog sizing, but the critic's causal contribution is unproven without an ablation that controls for the extra LLM compute. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.24714 v3 pith:WT2V3GSD submitted 2026-03-25 cs.LG cs.SYeess.SY

Can an Actor-Critic Optimization Framework Improve Analog Design?

Sounak Dutta , Fin Amin , Sushil Panda , Jonathan Rabe , Yuejiang Wen , Paul Franzon This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.SYeess.SY
keywords analog circuit sizingactor-critic frameworkBayesian optimizationlarge language modelsdesign space reductionSPICE simulationfigure of meritregret
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Analog sizing is expensive because each candidate requires SPICE simulation and good designs occupy a narrow part of a high-dimensional space. The central claim is that inserting an independent critic between proposal and simulation—an actor proposes a region, the critic audits and corrects it, and Bayesian optimization searches within the approved region—yields better, more reliable designs than a single LLM proposing regions alone or optimization with no language guidance. Across four circuit benchmarks, the framework reports a 38.9% average improvement in top-10 figure of merit over the strongest baseline and 24.7% lower regret, with peak gains of 70.5% and 42.2%. A sympathetic reading takes this as evidence that separating generation from evaluation, rather than adding more reasoning to one model, is what makes LLM-guided search pay off.

Core claim

The discovery is a role separation that maps analog design review onto an optimization loop. At each round, an actor LLM proposes numeric subranges for all tunable device and bias knobs; a critic LLM receives those ranges, checks them against process design kit (PDK) bounds and prior-round evidence, repairs or tightens them, and writes a reflection memo; then Bayesian optimization samples candidates only inside the approved ranges for SPICE evaluation. The authors claim this structure, not the LLM per se, is what produces consistent gains: on all four benchmarks ACOF is the only method that leads in both top-10 FoM and regret, with higher simulator validity and physical-feasibility rates. Th

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the critic's independent audit-plus-memo step. The actor proposes a candidate search region; the critic validates it, repairs PDK-illegal or malformed ranges, and produces reflection memos that are folded into the next round summary. This separates the generation of a proposal from its evaluation, and it is what the paper contrasts with a single-LLM baseline that keeps the actor's region proposal but omits the critic's correction and reflection.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the independent critic—not simply the extra LLM computation, the narrower search ranges, or the prompt templates—is what causes the improved FoM and regret.

What would settle it

Run ACOF with the critic replaced by a pass-through that applies only legality clamping (no reflection memo, no range tightening, no redirection), keeping the same number of LLM calls and tokens. If top-10 FoM and regret then match the Single-LLM baseline within noise, the actor-critic separation is not the operative cause. Conversely, giving the single-LLM baseline an extra LLM call with the same round summary and observing equal gains would also falsify the uniqueness of role separation.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, LLM-guided region narrowing can be combined with existing BO and SPICE workflows without retraining or altering the simulator.
  • Designers gain an interpretable trace: each round's decision to keep, tighten, or redirect search is stated in a memo, not hidden in acquisition-function math.
  • Reliability improves as a direct corollary: fewer simulations are spent on points that simulate but are physically meaningless, since the critic filters ranges before sampling.
  • The framework's gains grow when the underlying LLM is stronger, suggesting the benefit is complementary to model progress rather than a substitute for it.
  • Across benchmarks, ACOF visits as many or more distinct design regions than baselines while keeping top-10 quality, indicating selective exploration is compatible with exploitation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension the authors leave implicit: the same actor-critic separation should transfer to other simulation-expensive design problems—RF matching networks, photonic component sizing, or process-technology tuning—where the PDK-bounds audit generalizes to any feasibility box.
  • An inference not drawn in the paper: the critic's reflection memos could be collected across circuits to form a reusable design-intuition memory, letting later optimization rounds start from accumulated trade-off knowledge rather than from scratch.
  • Another inference: the audit stage creates a natural place for human review, so a human designer could veto or adjust the critic's region edits before simulation, making the system a collaborative tool rather than a fully autonomous black box.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes ACOF, an analog-sizing loop in which an LLM actor proposes per-parameter search ranges and an LLM critic audits/repairs the proposal before a BO backend samples candidates evaluated by SPICE; a round summary plus critic reflection feeds the next proposal. Experiments on four circuits (SKY130 and GF180, 12–21 parameters) compare ACOF with a single-LLM+BO baseline and with BO alone, reporting top-10 FoM, reliability, region counts, and regret. The abstract's headline improvements (38.9% average FoM and 24.7% regret reduction over the strongest baseline) are internally consistent with Table I when averaged over the four circuits. The discussion interprets these results as evidence that role-separated proposal/audit is beneficial.

Significance. If the causal role of the critic were established, ACOF would be a practical extension of LEDRO-style LLM-guided region reduction, with a genuinely interesting structural addition: an independent critic that audits and corrects the actor's proposal before BO, plus reflection memos that carry knowledge across rounds. The multi-LLM comparison (Qwen2.5-14B, GPT-4o mini, GPT-5) is a strength, and the authors report run-level standard errors rather than only point estimates. However, the manuscript as written does not establish the mechanism claim: no ablation controls for the extra LLM call and prompting differences, and the FoM definition is underspecified. Thus the significance is conditional on additional experiments and full disclosure of the objective and metric definitions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-C, Performance Metrics] The component scores s_G, s_BW, s_phi, and s_W are never defined. The text says only that they are normalized, zero when the target is met, and penalize deviations otherwise, and then defines f(x)=3·s_G+s_BW+s_phi+s_W. Since every numerical result — the top-10 FoM, regret, and the abstract's 38.9%/24.7% — is computed from this f, the central empirical claim cannot be reproduced or independently checked without the exact penalty functions (functional form, normalization, clipping, target values). Please provide the complete formulas.
  2. [§IV-B and Fig. 1] The ACOF vs. Single-LLM comparison does not isolate the actor–critic role separation. The Single-LLM baseline 'forgoes the correction/refinement by the critic,' so ACOF differs from it in at least three ways simultaneously: an extra LLM call per round, a second prompt that receives the round summary and instructs the model to repair ranges, and the fact that the critic's output is the region actually used by BO. Fig. 1 shows the critic changing 21/21 knobs in a round, so the actor's proposal is not the final search region. Without a matched two-pass single-LLM ablation (same number of LLM calls, same summary context, same opportunity to revise ranges, but no role separation), the reported gains do not distinguish the actor–critic structure from more LLM computation or prompt formatting. The sentence in §IV-B, 'we will release the full prompting templates upon acceptance,' means the promp
  3. [Table I and Table II; n=3 runs] Only three runs per circuit are reported, with no significance tests or confidence intervals. Point estimates favor ACOF on FoM and regret, but several differences are marginal relative to the reported SEMs. For example, 130nm 12-Params FoM: ACOF −0.190±0.01 vs. Single-LLM −0.240±0.02; 130nm 17-Params FoM: ACOF −0.13±0.05 vs. Single-LLM −0.44±0.17. The aggregate 38.9% improvement is a ratio of point estimates. Please report per-comparison tests or confidence intervals with appropriate multiple-comparison handling, or additional runs, so the headline strength can be assessed.
  4. [§IV-C, Exploration/Exploitation metrics] The 'Regions' metric is obtained by applying HDBSCAN to pooled run-level point clouds, but the manuscript does not report the HDBSCAN hyperparameters (min_cluster_size, min_samples, distance metric, etc.) or the method for converting cluster labels into a region count. The number of 'discovered regions' can be highly sensitive to these choices, and this metric is used to support the discussion's exploration claims. Please disclose and justify the parameters, or replace this with a parameter-free metric.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-C] Target specifications are said to be 'reported as Target Spec. in Fig. I'; this should be 'Table I'.
  2. [Fig. 5 / Table II] The model name is written inconsistently: 'GPT 4o Mini' in the Fig. 5 caption versus 'GPT-4o Mini' in Table II.
  3. [Table I] The Human Expert rows have no SEM and no description of how many expert runs were involved; please clarify.
  4. [Fig. 3] The caption says 'GPT 4o Mini,' but Section IV states Qwen is the default LLM for Table I; clarify which model generated the UMAP panels.
  5. [§IV-C] The FoM gain weight of 3 on s_G is not motivated; a sentence explaining the choice would help readers interpret the objective.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the reported FoM/regret gains are externally measured against baselines; the main issue is an ablation confound, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: ACOF vs Single-LLM vs Pure-BO on four circuits (§IV-B, Table I). FoM and regret are computed from Ngspice simulation outputs via a fixed objective f(x)=3·sG+sBW+sφ+sW (§IV-C) and then averaged over top-10 designs; these are measurements, not quantities derived by construction from the method's own equations. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then 'predicted' on a closely related quantity. The LLM proposes and audits search regions, and BO+simulation evaluate within them; the reported 38.9% FoM / 24.7% regret improvements are observed outcomes, not in-sample fits. The only self-citations ([11],[12]) appear in background discussion (§I, §II-A) and do not support the central result. The manuscript does flag a missing support: 'For clarity and reproducibility, we will release the full prompting templates upon acceptance' (§IV-B). The more substantive concern is a confound: ACOF differs from the Single-LLM baseline by an extra LLM call (the critic audit), so the gains do not isolate role separation from additional LLM compute. That is an ablation/causal-identification gap, not circularity, because the reported numbers remain externally comparable against baselines. The mild self-referentiality of the critic reflecting on its own memos is the designed feedback mechanism, not a hidden reuse of the target result. Overall, no circular step is identifiable by the paper's own equations or citations, consistent with a low non-circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim is supported by benchmark measurements, but it rests on several hand-chosen quantities (FoM weight and targets), a domain assumption that the tested circuits represent analog sizing, and unreleased implementation details. No physical entities are introduced; the actor and critic are software roles.

free parameters (5)
  • FoM gain weight = 3
    FoM f(x) = 3·s_G + s_BW + s_φ + s_W; the relative weight of gain over other specs is chosen by hand and defines the objective being optimized (Section IV-C).
  • Target specifications per circuit (G*, BW*, φ*, W*) = e.g., 130nm 12P: 85 dB, 900 MHz, 100 deg, 0.554 mW
    Hand-set targets define the zero-FoM point; they are chosen by the authors and not derived from a product spec; changing them would change all FoM values and 'regret' (Table I).
  • Seeding set size C0 = 200
    Initial BO-generated points used to condition LLM baselines (Section IV-B); chosen by authors and held fixed across methods.
  • Per-round candidate budget = 100 steps
    Round schedule hyperparameter implied by Fig. 5 ('update the optimization ranges every 100 steps'); held equal across methods but affects the number of LLM interventions.
  • HDBSCAN clustering hyperparameters = not reported
    The 'Regions' metric is computed via HDBSCAN (Section IV-C); parameters are not specified, so the number of regions is not reproducible from the paper.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption LLM agents produce meaningful numeric ranges and audits for analog sizing.
    The whole framework depends on LLM-generated ranges being plausible enough to guide BO; tested empirically on 4 circuits but no guarantee outside them (Section IV-B).
  • domain assumption Ngspice with the SKY130 and GF180 PDK models accurately evaluates circuit performance.
    The FoM and reliability metrics rely on simulator outputs; standard tool but no verification of model accuracy for the given benchmarks (Section IV-B).
  • domain assumption The four chosen circuits are representative of analog sizing difficulty.
    Generalization to other topologies and technology nodes is assumed in the title's broad claim ('Analog Design') but data covers only two topologies and two nodes (Section IV-A).
  • ad hoc to paper The penalty functions s_G, s_BW, s_φ, s_W are normalized and well-defined.
    The paper states each score 'is zero when target met and penalizes deviations otherwise' without giving the penalty formula; this is an unstated assumption needed to recompute FoM (Section IV-C).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11690 in / 18384 out tokens · 181658 ms · 2026-08-02T17:27:34.687436+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can an Actor-Critic Optimization Framework Improve Analog Design?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WT2V3GSD

@misc{pith2026260324714,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can an Actor-Critic Optimization Framework Improve Analog Design?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WT2V3GSD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.24714}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Analog design often slows down because even small changes to device sizes or biases require expensive simulation cycles, and high-quality solutions typically occupy only a narrow part of a very large search space. While existing optimizers reduce some of this burden, they largely operate without the kind of judgment designers use when deciding where to search next. This paper presents an actor-critic optimization framework (ACOF) for analog sizing that brings that form of guidance into the loop. Rather than treating optimization as a purely black-box search problem, ACOF separates the roles of proposal and evaluation: an actor suggests promising regions of the design space, while a critic reviews those choices, enforces design legality, and redirects the search when progress is hampered. This structure preserves compatibility with standard simulator-based flows while making the search process more deliberate, stable, and interpretable. Across our test circuits, ACOF improves the top-10 figure of merit by an average of 38.9% over the strongest competing baseline and reduces regret by an average of 24.7%, with peak gains of 70.5% in FoM and 42.2% lower regret on individual circuits. By combining iterative reasoning with simulation-driven search, the framework offers a more transparent path toward automated analog sizing across challenging design spaces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.24714 by Fin Amin, Jonathan Rabe, Paul Franzon, Sounak Dutta, Sushil Panda, Yuejiang Wen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example of interactions between our actor and critic components over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An overview of our actor–critic optimization framework (ACOF). At each time step, ++ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: UMAP projections of the sizing parameters illustrate how the design space was explored over optimization rounds. To aid visualization, we outlined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The circuit schematics of our benchmarks. For an OpAmp, gain, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Exponentially-smoothed FoM trajectories for the 180nm 21-parameter folded-cascode benchmark using variants of GPT as the LLM. Subcaptions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: On the 180 nm 21-parameters circuit, the red contours [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    M. F. Barros, J. M. Guilherme, and N. C. Horta,Analog circuits and systems optimization based on evolutionary computation techniques. Springer, 2010, vol. 9

    2010

  2. [2]

    Using probabilistic model rollouts to boost the sample efficiency of reinforcement learning for automated analog circuit sizing,

    M. Ahmadzadeh and G. G. Gielen, “Using probabilistic model rollouts to boost the sample efficiency of reinforcement learning for automated analog circuit sizing,” inProceedings of the 61st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  3. [3]

    Anacraft: Duel-play probabilistic-model-based reinforcement learning for sample-efficient pvt-robust analog circuit sizing optimization,

    M. Ahmadzadeh, J. Lappas, N. Wehn, and G. Gielen, “Anacraft: Duel-play probabilistic-model-based reinforcement learning for sample-efficient pvt-robust analog circuit sizing optimization,”IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    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, 2017

    1954

  5. [5]

    Local bayesian optimization for analog circuit sizing,

    K. Touloupas, N. Chouridis, and P. P. Sotiriadis, “Local bayesian optimization for analog circuit sizing,” in2021 58th ACM/IEEE design automation conference (DAC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1237–1242

    2021

  6. [6]

    Layoutcopilot: An llm-powered multi-agent collaborative framework for interactive analog layout design,

    B. Liu, H. Zhang, X. Gao, Z. Kong, X. Tang, Y . Lin, R. Wang, and R. Huang, “Layoutcopilot: An llm-powered multi-agent collaborative framework for interactive analog layout design,”IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Llm- enhanced bayesian optimization for efficient analog layout constraint generation,

    G. Chen, K. Zhu, S. Kim, H. Zhu, Y . Lai, B. Yu, and D. Z. Pan, “Llm- enhanced bayesian optimization for efficient analog layout constraint generation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05250, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    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,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 1, 2025, pp. 379–387

    2025

  10. [10]

    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,” inPro- ceedings of the 43rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer- Aided Design, 2024, pp. 1–9

    2024

  11. [11]

    Can low-rank knowledge distillation in llms be useful for microelectronic reasoning?

    N. Rouf, F. Amin, and P. D. Franzon, “Can low-rank knowledge distillation in llms be useful for microelectronic reasoning?” in2024 IEEE LLM Aided Design Workshop (LAD), 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  12. [12]

    High dimensional optimization for electronic design,

    Y . Wen, J. Dean, B. A. Floyd, and P. D. Franzon, “High dimensional optimization for electronic design,” inProceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE Workshop on Machine Learning for CAD, 2022, pp. 153–157

    2022

  13. [13]

    tss- bo: Scalable bayesian optimization for analog circuit sizing via truncated subspace sampling,

    T. Gu, J. Wang, Z. Bi, C. Yan, F. Yang, Y . Qin, T. Cui, and X. Zeng, “tss- bo: Scalable bayesian optimization for analog circuit sizing via truncated subspace sampling,” in2024 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  14. [14]

    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

  15. [15]

    Eesizer: Llm-based ai agent for sizing of analog and mixed signal circuit,

    C. Liu and D. Chitnis, “Eesizer: Llm-based ai agent for sizing of analog and mixed signal circuit,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Llm-uso: Large language model-based universal sizing optimizer,

    N. K. Somayaji and P. Li, “Llm-uso: Large language model-based universal sizing optimizer,”IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    Reflex- ion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning,

    N. Shinn, F. Cassano, A. Gopinath, K. Narasimhan, and S. Yao, “Reflex- ion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 8634–8652, 2023

    2023

  18. [18]

    Needle in the haystack for memory based large language models,

    E. Nelson, G. Kollias, P. Das, S. Chaudhury, and S. Dan, “Needle in the haystack for memory based large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01437, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto,Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://incompleteideas.net/book/the-book-2nd.html

    2018

  20. [20]

    Policy gradient methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation,

    R. S. Sutton, D. A. McAllester, S. P. Singh, and Y . Mansour, “Policy gradient methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 12 (NeurIPS 1999), S. A. Solla, T. K. Leen, and K.-R. Müller, Eds. MIT Press, 2000, pp. 1057–1063

    1999

  21. [21]

    Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,

    V . Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. A. Rusu, J. Veness, M. G. Bellemare, A. Graves, M. Riedmiller, A. K. Fidjeland, G. Ostrovski, S. Petersen, C. Beattie, A. Sadik, I. Antonoglou, H. King, D. Kumaran, D. Wierstra, S. Legg, and D. Hassabis, “Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,”Nature, vol. 518, no. 7540, pp. 529–533,

  22. [22]

    Trust region policy optimization,

    J. Schulman, S. Levine, P. Abbeel, M. Jordan, and P. Moritz, “Trust region policy optimization,” inProceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 37. PMLR, 2015, pp. 1889–1897. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v37/schulman15.html

    2015

  23. [23]

    Soft actor- critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,

    T. Haarnoja, A. Zhou, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Soft actor- critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,” inProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 80. PMLR, 2018, pp. 1861–1870. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v...

    2018

  24. [24]

    Addressing function ap- proximation error in actor-critic methods,

    S. Fujimoto, H. van Hoof, and D. Meger, “Addressing function ap- proximation error in actor-critic methods,” inProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2018, pp. 1587– 1596

    2018

  25. [25]

    Mastering atari, go, chess and shogi by planning with a learned model,

    J. Schrittwieser, I. Antonoglou, T. Hubert, K. Simonyan, L. Sifre, S. Schmitt, A. Guez, E. Lockhart, D. Hassabis, T. Graepel, T. Lillicrap, and D. Silver, “Mastering atari, go, chess and shogi by planning with a learned model,”Nature, vol. 588, no. 7839, pp. 604–609, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03051-4

    2020

  26. [26]

    Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences,

    P. F. Christiano, J. Leike, T. B. Brown, M. Martic, S. Legg, and D. Amodei, “Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (NeurIPS 2017), I. Guyon, U. V . Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, Eds. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017, pp. 4299–4307. [Online]. Av...

    2017

  27. [27]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,

    L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. L. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, J. Schulman, J. Hilton, F. Kelton, L. Miller, M. Simens, A. Askell, P. Welinder, P. F. Christiano, J. Leike, and R. Lowe, “Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35...

    2022

  28. [28]

    Bayesian-optimization,

    H. Wang, “Bayesian-optimization,” https://github.com/wangronin/ Bayesian-Optimization, 2023, gitHub repository

    2023

  29. [29]

    V ogt, G

    H. V ogt, G. Atkinson, and P. Nenzi,Ngspice User’s Manual, Sep. 2025, version 45 (ngspice release version). [Online]. Available: https://ngspice.sourceforge.io/docs/ngspice-45-manual.pdf

    2025

  30. [30]

    Qwen2.5-14b-instruct,

    Qwen Team, “Qwen2.5-14b-instruct,” https://huggingface.co/Qwen/ Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct, 2024, model card, accessed: 2026-03-15

    2024

  31. [31]

    Gpt-4o system card,

    A. Hurst, A. Lerer, A. P. Goucher, A. Perelman, A. Ramesh, A. Clark, A. Ostrow, A. Welihinda, A. Hayes, A. Radfordet al., “Gpt-4o system card,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Openai gpt-5 system card,

    A. Singh, A. Fry, A. Perelman, A. Tart, A. Ganesh, A. El-Kishky, A. McLaughlin, A. Low, A. Ostrow, A. Ananthramet al., “Openai gpt-5 system card,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    hdbscan: Hierarchical density based clustering

    L. McInnes, J. Healy, S. Astelset al., “hdbscan: Hierarchical density based clustering.”J. Open Source Softw., vol. 2, no. 11, p. 205, 2017

    2017

  34. [2015]

    Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14236

    [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14236