Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

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

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LEDRO claims that a large language model, prompted with a netlist and five sampled points, can repeatedly narrow an analog circuit's design space so that a Bayesian optimizer finds better amplifiers in fewer steps, beating its strongest…

desk verdict A novel LLM-guided range-reduction loop with an impressive 22-op-amp benchmark, but the missing non-LLM control leaves the 'LLM-enhanced' claim underdetermined. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12930 v2 pith:Z5PJGFRE submitted 2024-11-19 cs.LG cs.SYeess.SY

Dimple Vijay Kochar , Hanrui Wang , Anantha Chandrakasan , Xin Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.SYeess.SY
keywords analogcircuitsizinglargelanguagemodelsdesignspacereductionBayesianoptimizationTuRBOoperationalamplifiersFinFETtechnologyfigureofmerit
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

LEDRO tests a simple premise: a large language model, shown a circuit netlist and a handful of sampled design points, can propose narrower parameter ranges that contain good amplifiers, and a Bayesian optimizer can then find the best one faster inside those ranges than over the full space. The paper reports that this loop beats the strongest baseline it compares against—two thousand steps of the TuRBO optimizer—by 8–20% in figure of merit on low-complexity operational amplifiers and 41–55% on high-complexity ones, while using at most 1200 optimizer steps. No retraining or per-circuit annotation is needed, so the same prompted model transfers across 22 amplifier topologies and four FinFET technology nodes. The gain is largest precisely where full-space search struggles: high-dimensional, high-complexity circuits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the LEDRO loop: calibration point synthesis, LLM range proposal, optimizer sampling, feedback, and self-reflection. In each round, the LLM receives the circuit netlist, the specification boundaries, and five high-FoM points sampled by the optimizer, and outputs new parameter intervals; TuRBO then samples 100 points inside those intervals, and the results are fed back with a reflection prompt that asks the LLM to reconsider its strategy. The Figure of Merit that drives the loop is defined as $\phi(s, s_{\rm bound}) = (s - s_{\rm bound})/(s + s_{\rm bound})$ and $V = \sum_s w_s \phi(s, s_{\rm bound})$, with negative values and 0 as best, so the optimizer must balance gain, bandwidth, phase margin, and supply current simultaneously.

What would settle it

Take one of the low-complexity Op-Amps, find its true best region by an exhaustive long run or grid, then check whether the first-round ranges proposed by the language model contain that region; if they routinely do not, the mechanism the paper credits for the improvement is not doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that LLMs, despite never being trained on this optimization task, can act as reliable region proposers for analog sizing: given only the netlist, specifications, and five calibration points, they return search intervals that consistently contain high-performance designs, converting a global search into a sequence of local searches. Because the refinement is driven by simulation feedback and LLM self-reflection, the proposed region shifts adaptively and does not require any training for new topologies or nodes. The paper claims this mechanism generalizes and scales, with improvements growing as circuit complexity rises.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the language model's proposed parameter ranges actually containing high-performing designs; if a range excludes the region where the best amplifier lives, the optimizer cannot recover it, and the reported gains disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Analog circuit sizing can be automated without retraining per topology or technology node: the same prompted LLM transfers across all 22 topologies and four FinFET nodes in the study.
  • LEDRO's advantage widens as circuit complexity rises, suggesting the method is most useful exactly where full-space Bayesian optimization and RL struggle.
  • Because LEDRO reaches the best TuRBO-achieved figure of merit in fewer simulation steps (1.17–2.48x speedup), it cuts both simulator cost and wall-clock time even after counting LLM calls.
  • The framework is presented as plug-and-play: the LLM can be swapped (LLaMa3, LLaMa3.3, GPT-3.5 in the study) and the optimizer can in principle be any search method, not just TuRBO.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is what the results suggest, the same 'LLM proposes regions, optimizer exploits them' pattern should transfer to other high-dimensional design tasks where a cheap simulator exists, such as RF front-ends, data converters, or even device process tuning; the paper hints at this but does not test it.
  • A direct test of attribution would be to hold the optimizer fixed and compare LEDRO's LLM-proposed ranges against ranges drawn randomly around the same calibration points; equal performance would mean the gains come from shrinking the space, not from analog knowledge.
  • The prompt includes five calibration points plus the netlist; an untested question is how sensitive the result is to the number or placement of those points, and whether the LLM is actually using them or just falling back on generic amplifier heuristics.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LEDRO, an iterative analog Op-Amp sizing framework that combines a large language model (LLaMA-3-70B) with TuRBO Bayesian optimization. The LLM receives a netlist, five calibration points sampled by TuRBO, and feedback/self-reflection prompts, and outputs narrowed parameter ranges; TuRBO then samples within those ranges for 100 steps per round. The method is evaluated on 22 Op-Amp topologies across four PTM-MG FinFET nodes and compared against TuRBO and a modified RL baseline. The paper claims average FoM improvements of 13% with 2.15x speed-up on low-complexity Op-Amps and 48% with 1.7x speed-up on high-complexity Op-Amps, plus better generalization without per-circuit training.

Significance. If the central claim holds, LEDRO would be a practically valuable, training-free alternative to per-topology RL and BO for analog sizing: it requires no fine-tuning, uses a broad benchmark of 88 circuit/technology combinations, and the authors release code. The case study with two different LLMs and the ablations of the feedback and reflection components are useful. However, the headline result is not yet established because the experimental design never isolates the LLM's contribution: the iterative re-narrowing loop itself, without any LLM, may explain the gains. The breadth of the benchmark and the clarity of the FoM objective are strengths, but the missing control is load-bearing for the 'LLM-enhanced' attribution in the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-A/B and Appendix V-A] The experiments never compare LEDRO against an iterative range-narrowing optimizer that uses a non-LLM heuristic in place of the LLM's range proposal. The pipeline already supplies 200 calibration points and the top-5 seed points; the LLM's ranges are the only novel component. A control such as (i) an expanded bounding box of the current top-5 points, or (ii) TuRBO restarts with trust-region recentering, run under the same 200 + 10x100 = 1200 evaluation budget, would isolate the LLM's contribution. The appendix ablates the feedback loop and reflection but not the LLM range-proposal step. Without this control, the abstract's claim that the 13-48% FoM gains come from 'LLM-enhanced' reduction is not established; the gains could arise from iterative re-narrowing and multi-restart behavior alone. This is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Section II-A, Eq. (1)] The displayed formula phi(s,sbound) = (s - sbound)/(s + sbound) is positive whenever s > sbound, yet the text states 'if s = sbound, the normalized value is capped at 0; else phi(s, sbound) < 0' and that 'the maximum achievable FoM value is 0.' These statements are mutually inconsistent with the formula as written. Please state explicitly whether the implementation caps each phi at 0 for s > sbound (and write the formula with a clamp or min(., 0)), or correct the text. Since every reported FoM improvement is computed from this objective, the definition must be unambiguous.
  3. [Section III-A and Table I] The headline numbers are averages over topology/technology cells, but the paper does not report the number of independent runs, standard deviations, or per-cell variance. The sentence 'we ... report the best of five runs' appears only in the description of the TuRBO baseline and is ambiguous as to whether the same protocol was applied to LEDRO and the RL baseline. Please clarify the run protocol for every method and report error bars or at least per-run best values. Also specify exactly how the 'steps to best BO-2000 FoM' is measured for LEDRO (from the start of calibration, or from the first LLM-constrained round) and whether BO-2000's 2000 steps include the initial 200 calibration steps. Without this, the speed-up claims and the precise magnitude of the FoM gains cannot be independently assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section III-A] The abstract says '22 different Op-Amp topologies across four FinFET technology nodes' while the text also mentions '88 different circuits'; please make the counting explicit (22 topologies x 4 nodes) and clarify whether all 88 cells were actually simulated.
  2. [Figures 7 and 8] The legends and captions mix per-topology lines with 'Average' lines, and it is not stated whether the per-topology lines are single runs or best-of-five. Please clarify the legend and caption so each curve is unambiguous.
  3. [Section II-B, Figure 3] The prompt example shows 'gain: 5.77' while the target gain is 3300, and UGBW is given in Hz; please add units to all specification values in the prompt examples so the calibration points are not confusing.
  4. [Appendix V-A] The temperature-robustness and LLM-generalizability experiments are performed only on the single folded-cascode case study; this limitation should be stated in the main text and not only in the appendix.
  5. [Throughout] The model name is spelled inconsistently as 'LLaMa', 'LLaMA', and 'Llama'; please standardize to one spelling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: LEDRO's reported gains are empirical comparisons against baselines optimizing the same objective, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical system: calibration points are sampled by TuRBO, the LLM proposes a reduced box, TuRBO optimizes within that box, and the result is compared against TuRBO and RL baselines under the same FoM objective and equal or larger evaluation budgets. The FoM is defined once in Section II-A and applied uniformly to all methods; no parameter is fitted to the reported LEDRO improvement, and the LLM is not asked to predict the final FoM but only to propose ranges after being given target specifications and calibration points. The baselines are independent (TuRBO from Eriksson et al., RL from Settaluri et al. and related actor-critic works), and the only self-citation ([5] by co-author Wang) appears in the introduction as background among other RL references and is not load-bearing for LEDRO's claimed performance. The absence of a non-LLM range-proposer control is a legitimate experimental-control limitation that weakens attribution of the gains to the LLM, but it is not circularity: the central comparison remains an external benchmark of full LEDRO against full-space optimizers under an identical objective. No equation is defined in terms of its own output, and no 'prediction' is equivalent to a fitted input by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-picked objective-function parameters (FoM weights and boundaries) and on the untested premise that the LLM's latent knowledge transfers across topologies and nodes. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • FoM weights (wG, wf, wPM, wI) = 3, 1, 1, -1
    Hand-chosen by the authors to emphasize gain; directly sets the optimization objective that all methods are scored on. Different weights could change which circuit is 'better' and the reported improvements.
  • FoM boundary values (Gbound, Ibound, fbound, PMbound) = Low: 50 dB, 5 uA, 5 MHz, 70 deg; High: 70 dB, 10 uA, 20 MHz, 70 deg
    One fixed set per complexity group, stated by the authors to be 'challenging for most amplifiers'. These bounds determine the normalized FoM and thus the measured gains.
  • LLM sampling temperature = 0.8
    Chosen after testing 0.5-0.9 on the case study; the appendix states that higher diversity aids exploration. This tuning could affect the proposed ranges and the final FoM.
  • Calibration gain threshold and top-5 selection = 0 dB; top 5 ranked by FoM
    Hand-set threshold for filtering 'good' calibration points. It is deliberately low to be easy to find, but the choice of 0 dB and the number of examples (5) affect how the LLM is guided.
  • Budget split (calibration, optimizer samples per round, rounds) = 200, 100, 10
    Hand-set to equal 1200 total simulations. The split between calibration and exploitation is arbitrary and directly affects the speedup comparison.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The PTM-MG predictive models and Cadence Spectre simulator accurately model FinFET op-amp behavior for sizing purposes.
    All FoM values come from this simulator; if the models are inaccurate, the reported improvements may not transfer to real silicon.
  • domain assumption LLaMa3-70B (and similar LLMs) possess enough analog circuit knowledge to propose useful parameter ranges from a netlist and calibration points.
    The method's core mechanism depends on the LLM's latent knowledge; the paper provides no analysis of which features the LLM uses or why it succeeds.
  • ad hoc to paper A single set of fixed FoM boundary values per complexity group is a fair basis for comparing different topologies.
    The authors acknowledge that customized boundaries per circuit are infeasible; this simplification could systematically favor certain topologies and is a source of potential bias in the average improvements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LEDRO: LLM-Enhanced Design Space Reduction and Optimization for Analog Circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z5PJGFRE

@misc{pith2026241112930,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LEDRO: LLM-Enhanced Design Space Reduction and Optimization for Analog Circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z5PJGFRE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12930}
}
read the original abstract

Traditional approaches for designing analog circuits are time-consuming and require significant human expertise. Existing automation efforts using methods like Bayesian Optimization (BO) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) are sub-optimal and costly to generalize across different topologies and technology nodes. In our work, we introduce a novel approach, LEDRO, utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) in conjunction with optimization techniques to iteratively refine the design space for analog circuit sizing. LEDRO is highly generalizable compared to other RL and BO baselines, eliminating the need for design annotation or model training for different topologies or technology nodes. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of our proposed framework and baseline on 22 different Op-Amp topologies across four FinFET technology nodes. Results demonstrate the superior performance of LEDRO as it outperforms our best baseline by an average of 13% FoM improvement with 2.15x speed-up on low complexity Op-Amps and 48% FoM improvement with 1.7x speed-up on high complexity Op-Amps. This highlights LEDRO's effective performance, efficiency, and generalizability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12930 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of LLM-enhanced design space reduction and optimization (LEDRO). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Block-diagram of proposed framework. verbalized FoM objective function. Finally, we add instructions prompting the LLM to select and appropriately reduce the design search space, along with output formatting instruc￾tions. Detailed information about the transistor operation (cut￾off, subthreshold, saturation, or linear region) and its self￾knowledge allows the LLM to make informed decisions and efficiently provide t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. First round prompt and response for folded cascode amplifier. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Parameters per Op-Amp and division into high and low-complexity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Differential folded cascode circuit and gain, UGBW, and FoM for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance (FoM) and Efficiency (number of steps) comparison of LEDRO with other baselines for different low-complexity amplifier topologies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Performance (FoM) and Efficiency (number of steps) comparison of LEDRO with other baselines for different high-complexity amplifier topologies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Average percentage improvement in gain for both sets of amplifiers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. SABLE: An NDA-Safe Closed-Loop LLM Framework for Analog Circuit Optimization in Industrial EDA Flows

    cs.AR 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    An NDA-safe scrubbed boundary lets cloud LLMs optimize analog circuits in real Cadence flows; multi-model PVT benchmarks show successful closure on LC-VCO (7/11) and two-stage op-amp (4/11) tasks.

  2. iDSE: Navigating Design Space Exploration in High-Level Synthesis Using LLMs

    cs.AR 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An LLM-based design space exploration system for HLS combines design-space pruning, LLM-generated seed directives, and convergent/divergent refinement to approximate Pareto-optimal designs with few synthesis evaluations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Rutenbar, and L

    Harjani, Ramesh, Rob A. Rutenbar, and L. Richard Carley. ”OASYS: A framework for analog circuit synthesis.” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 8.12 (1989): 1247-1266

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    ”An efficient bayesian optimization approach for automated optimization of analog circuits.” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers 65.6 (2017): 1954-1967

    Lyu, Wenlong, et al. ”An efficient bayesian optimization approach for automated optimization of analog circuits.” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers 65.6 (2017): 1954-1967

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Sotiriadis

    Touloupas, Konstantinos, Nikos Chouridis, and Paul P. Sotiriadis. ”Local Bayesian optimization for analog circuit sizing.” 2021 58th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). IEEE, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    ”Autockt: Deep reinforcement learning of analog circuit designs.” 2020 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE)

    Settaluri, Keertana, et al. ”Autockt: Deep reinforcement learning of analog circuit designs.” 2020 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    ”GCN-RL circuit designer: Transferable transistor sizing with graph neural networks and reinforcement learning.” 2020 57th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC)

    Wang, Hanrui, et al. ”GCN-RL circuit designer: Transferable transistor sizing with graph neural networks and reinforcement learning.” 2020 57th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    ”Automated synthesis of analog electrical circuits by means of genetic programming.” IEEE Transactions on evolutionary computation 1.2 (1997): 109-128

    Koza, John R., et al. ”Automated synthesis of analog electrical circuits by means of genetic programming.” IEEE Transactions on evolutionary computation 1.2 (1997): 109-128

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Genetic Algorithm Software System for Analog Circuit Design

    Cohen, M. Genetic Algorithm Software System for Analog Circuit Design. Procedia CIRP 36 (2015) 17-22

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    ”LayoutCopilot: An LLM-powered Multi-agent Collaborative Framework for Interactive Analog Layout Design.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18873 (2024)

    Liu, Bingyang, et al. ”LayoutCopilot: An LLM-powered Multi-agent Collaborative Framework for Interactive Analog Layout Design.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18873 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    ”LLM-Enhanced Bayesian Optimization for Efficient Analog Layout Constraint Generation.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05250 (2024)

    Chen, Guojin, et al. ”LLM-Enhanced Bayesian Optimization for Efficient Analog Layout Constraint Generation.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05250 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    ”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)

    Liu, Chengjie, et 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

  3. [11]

    ”AnalogCoder: Analog Circuit Design via Training-Free Code Generation.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14918 (2024)

    Lai, Yao, et al. ”AnalogCoder: Analog Circuit Design via Training-Free Code Generation.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14918 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    ”ADO-LLM: Analog Design Bayesian Optimization with In-Context Learning of Large Language Models.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18770 (2024)

    Yin, Yuxuan, et al. ”ADO-LLM: Analog Design Bayesian Optimization with In-Context Learning of Large Language Models.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18770 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    ”Artisan: Automated Operational Amplifier Design via Domain-specific Large Language Model.” Proceedings of the 61st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference

    Chen, Zihao, et al. ”Artisan: Automated Operational Amplifier Design via Domain-specific Large Language Model.” Proceedings of the 61st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference. 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    ”The llama 3 herd of models.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    Dubey, Abhimanyu, et al. ”The llama 3 herd of models.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    ”Scalable global optimization via local Bayesian optimization.” Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    Eriksson, David, et al. ”Scalable global optimization via local Bayesian optimization.” Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    ”Reinforcement Learning-based Analog Circuit Optimizer using g m/I D for Sizing.” 2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC)

    Choi, Minjeong, et al. ”Reinforcement Learning-based Analog Circuit Optimizer using g m/I D for Sizing.” 2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). IEEE, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    ”Prioritized reinforce- ment learning for analog circuit optimization with design knowledge.” 2021 58th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC)

    Somayaji, NS Karthik, Hanbin Hu, and Peng Li. ”Prioritized reinforce- ment learning for analog circuit optimization with design knowledge.” 2021 58th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). IEEE, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    ”Automated Design of Complex Analog Circuits with Multiagent based Reinforcement Learning.” 2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC)

    Zhang, Jinxin, et al. ”Automated Design of Complex Analog Circuits with Multiagent based Reinforcement Learning.” 2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). IEEE, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    ”tSS-BO: Scalable Bayesian Optimization for Analog Circuit Sizing via Truncated Subspace Sampling.” 2024 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE)

    Gu, Tianchen, et al. ”tSS-BO: Scalable Bayesian Optimization for Analog Circuit Sizing via Truncated Subspace Sampling.” 2024 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Li, Yaping, et al. ”An artificial neural network assisted optimization system for analog design space exploration.” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 39.10 (2019): 2640-2653

    2019

  13. [21]

    ”Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforce- ment learning.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    Shinn, Noah, et al. ”Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforce- ment learning.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    ”Exploring sub-20nm FinFET design with pre- dictive technology models.” Proceedings of the 49th Annual Design Automation Conference

    Sinha, Saurabh, et al. ”Exploring sub-20nm FinFET design with pre- dictive technology models.” Proceedings of the 49th Annual Design Automation Conference. 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Budak, Ahmet Faruk, et al. ”An efficient analog circuit sizing method based on machine learning assisted global optimization.” IEEE Trans- actions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 41.5 (2021): 1209-1221

    2021

  16. [24]

    ”Dnn-opt: An rl inspired optimization for analog circuit sizing using deep neural networks.” 2021 58th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC)

    Budak, Ahmet F., et al. ”Dnn-opt: An rl inspired optimization for analog circuit sizing using deep neural networks.” 2021 58th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). IEEE, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    ”Deep reinforcement learning for analog circuit sizing.” 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS)

    Zhao, Zhenxin, and Lihong Zhang. ”Deep reinforcement learning for analog circuit sizing.” 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS). IEEE, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    ”GANA: Graph convolutional network based auto- mated netlist annotation for analog circuits.” 2020 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE)

    Kunal, Kishor, et al. ”GANA: Graph convolutional network based auto- mated netlist annotation for analog circuits.” 2020 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Efficient and accurate statistical analog yield optimization and variation-aware circuit sizing based on computational intelligence techniques,

    B. Liu, F. V . Fernandez, and G. G. E. Gielen, “Efficient and accurate statistical analog yield optimization and variation-aware circuit sizing based on computational intelligence techniques,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. ...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.