Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Linear Feedback Control Systems for Iterative Prompt Optimization in Large Language Models

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that iterative prompt optimization can be cast as a feedback loop in which a PID controller computes each prompt update from the output error.

desk verdict A framing analogy with no working mechanism: the central update rule p(t+1)=p(t)+u(t) is undefined for text prompts, and the paper's own example substitutes a natural-language instruction for the vector addition. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11979 v1 pith:XD3NLLTK submitted 2025-01-21 cs.LG

Rupesh Raj Karn This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords promptoptimizationfeedbackcontrolPIDcontrollerlargelanguagemodelsiterativerefinementtheorysetpointtrackingtransformerattention
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

Prompt optimization today is largely guesswork and rephrasing. The paper's proposal is to treat it as a feedback control problem: measure the difference between the model's output and a desired setpoint, run that error through a PID controller, and add the controller's output to the prompt at each step. It claims that this closed loop drives the LLM's output toward the target even though the LLM is nonlinear and stochastic, because the error term is what shapes each prompt update. If the framework holds, prompt engineering would gain a systematic mathematical update rule instead of trial and error, and decades of controller-tuning knowledge could be imported into working with language models. The paper itself presents the mathematical setup and a hand-worked FPGA example, and states that practical implementation and evaluation will appear in a follow-up publication.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the PID control law and its insertion point. The controller computes $u(t)$ from the error between setpoint and measured output; the paper then applies this same $u(t)$ in Eq. (2) to update the prompt and in Eqs. (8)--(13) to perturb token embeddings, positional indices, and attention matrices. This imported proportional/integral/derivative decomposition is what carries the argument: proportional action reacts to the current output gap, integral action accumulates past gaps (which the paper argues gives session memory in stateful chatbots), and derivative action smooths against abrupt prompt changes. Without this insertion mechanism there is no closed loop.

What would settle it

Run the paper's FPGA example exactly: starting from the initial prompt, translate each computed $u(t)$ into a textual instruction, synthesize the resulting HLS C code, and measure LUT/FF/DSP/BRAM utilization; if the resource-utilization error $r(t)-y(t)$ does not shrink toward zero or grows over successive iterations, the convergence claim is false for that setting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the update rule $p(t+1)=p(t)+u(t)$, with $u(t)$ given by the PID law $u(t)=K_pe(t)+K_i\int_0^t e(\tau)d\tau + K_d\frac{de(t)}{dt}$ and $e(t)=r(t)-\hat y(t)$, turns an LLM into a controllable system. The paper models the LLM output as $\sigma(t+1)=g(f(p(t+1))) + \eta(t)$ and the system output as $y(t+1)=\phi(\sigma(t+1)) + \nu(t)$, then inserts $u(t)$ into tokenization, embeddings, positional encodings, attention queries/keys/values, and the output projection. It asserts that these insertions make the prompt the manipulated variable of a closed loop and that repeated application of the update makes $y(t)$ converge to the setpoint $r(t)$, with a worked FPGA resource-utilization example showing error reductions across iterations.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method depends on being able to add a number to a prompt, to token positions, and to embeddings, but a prompt is a sequence of words and that addition has no defined meaning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If convergence holds, classic controller-tuning recipes such as Ziegler-Nichols can be imported to set $K_p$, $K_i$, $K_d$ for prompt-refinement loops.
  • In stateless API settings the paper's model predicts the integral and derivative terms are effectively zero, so prompt quality should be governed mainly by the proportional term $K_pe(t)$.
  • The same loop should apply to any measurable output criterion, since the system block $\phi$ only needs to map the LLM output to a scalar or vector setpoint error.
  • Comparing PID with lead-lag, LQR, and fuzzy controllers on the same prompt-optimization task becomes a meaningful experiment within this framework, since each controller defines a different $u(t)$ update law.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test not run in the paper would fix a benchmark task, define a semantic or heuristic output metric as the setpoint, and record whether PID-updated prompts decrease that metric's error over successive iterations.
  • Because the paper writes the update as addition but demonstrates it as a textual instruction, translating $u(t)$ into natural-language directives is itself an underspecified design choice; an embedding-space implementation that decodes a shifted prompt vector would test the equation more literally.
  • The framework suggests a plant-identification step: measuring an LLM's local input--output sensitivity around a prompt would provide empirical bounds on $K_p$ and show where the linear-control assumption starts to fail.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes applying linear feedback control, specifically PID control, to iterative prompt optimization for LLMs. It defines a control signal u(t) from the error between the desired output r(t) and the measured LLM output y(t), and then updates the prompt by p(t+1)=p(t)+u(t). The paper introduces stochastic and nonlinear terms into the LLM output equations, describes how u(t) is injected into token embeddings, positional encodings, attention, and feed-forward layers, compares PID with Lead-Lag, LQR, and Fuzzy controllers, and gives an FPGA resource-utilization example to illustrate the proposed loop. The paper claims that this feedback loop ensures convergence of the LLM output to the setpoint and that it provides a theoretically grounded method for prompt optimization, while stating that practical implementation and evaluation are deferred to a follow-up publication.

Significance. If the central mechanism were well defined and the convergence claim were proven or empirically demonstrated, the analogy between PID control and prompt optimization could be a useful conceptual contribution. The paper does provide a clean presentation of control-theoretic notation and a plausible high-level analogy, but it contains no implementation, no experiments, and no machine-checked or formal verification of its claims. The contribution is therefore currently only an analogy accompanied by equations; its practical and scientific value depends entirely on the undefined update rule and unsupported convergence assertion, which the manuscript does not resolve.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III-A, Eq. (2)] The update rule p(t+1)=p(t)+u(t) is not a well-defined operation: p(t) is a discrete token sequence while u(t) is a real-valued control vector computed from resource-utilization percentages and timing units. The paper never defines what it means to add a real vector to a token sequence, and the only concrete demonstration in Section VI-B replaces this addition with a natural-language instruction such as 'Reduce resource usage by 6% LUTs, 3% FFs...', which is a different algorithm from the equation. Since Eq. (2) is the core mechanism of the claimed loop, this is a load-bearing gap.
  2. [Section IV-A and IV-B, Eqs. (8) and (9)] The injection of u(t) into embeddings and positional encodings is also undefined: Eq. (8) writes Embed(pi + u(t)) and Eq. (9) writes PE(i + u(t)), where pi is a token and i is an integer positional index, but no addition operation between a token or an integer and a real vector is specified in the tokenizer or positional-encoding lookup. The subsequent equations (10)-(13) inherit this undefinedness because they all depend on u(t) as an additive quantity to inputs, keys, queries, and values.
  3. [Section III-A and Eqs. (5)-(7)] The claim that 'the output y(t) converges towards the desired setpoint r(t)' is asserted without proof or sufficient assumptions. The manuscript introduces stochastic noise eta(t) and nu(t) and a nonlinear transformation g, but it provides no Lipschitz, contraction, monotonicity, or bounded-noise conditions on f, g, phi, or eta/nu, and no relation between the PID gains Kp, Ki, Kd and the LLM dynamics that would imply e(t) -> 0. The equations in Section III-B are descriptive definitions, not a stability analysis.
  4. [Section VI-B, Example computation] The presented example does not demonstrate convergence; it assumes it. The value y(1) is stipulated as 'might be' a certain vector, and then e(1) and u(1) are computed from that stipulated value, so the error reduction is injected by the author rather than produced by the update rule. In addition, the integral term is evaluated as zero at t=0 with no justification, and the derivative term de(0)/dt is not computable from the data given, so the numerical values of u(0) and u(1) are not derived from the stated PID law.
  5. [Section I and Conclusion] The paper itself states that 'the follow-up publication will detail the practical implementation and evaluation of this theory... and release the source code', which is an explicit acknowledgment that the proposed mechanism has not been implemented or validated. For a paper whose central claims are about a working feedback loop that 'ensures' convergence, the absence of any experimental or simulated evaluation leaves those claims unsubstantiated within the manuscript's scope.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The notation 'equ (1)', 'equ (2)', and similar appears repeatedly; the manuscript should use consistent equation references such as 'Eq. (1)'.
  2. [Eq. (7)] In Eq. (7), the noise term is written as nu(t) while the output is y(t+1); the time index of the noise term should be clarified to be consistent with the stochastic process description.
  3. [Section III-B] The distinction between sigma(t) and y(t) and the roles of beta and phi are introduced informally; a single table or list defining all variables would improve readability.
  4. [Section V] The comparison of PID with Lead-Lag, LQR, and Fuzzy controllers is qualitative only; the paper should at least state that no simulation or benchmark is used for this comparison, since the text suggests relative effectiveness without evidence.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The FPGA example assumes the improved output it claims to demonstrate, and the 'optimized' LLM output is loaded into the defining equations rather than derived.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VI-B (Example for FPGA Design), prompt update p(1) and displayed y(1)]
    "p(1) = p(0) + u(0) = "Generate optimized HLS C code for a neural network with 1 layer, 64 neurons each, using Vivado HLS. Reduce resource usage by 6% LUTs, 3% FFs, 12% DSPs, 9% BRAMs, and improve timing by 0.15 ns." After processing by the LLM, the new output y(1) might be: y(1) = [65% 62% 70% 68% 0 ns]"

    The improvement from y(0) to y(1) is not produced by Eq. (2) or by any measured LLM call; it is chosen by the authors. The paper then computes e(1) from this assumed y(1), so the error decrease shown in the example is built into the demonstration by construction. The illustration therefore 'shows' convergence only by stipulating the very output the feedback loop is supposed to generate.

  2. self definitional [Section IV-E (Incorporating PID Control into LLM Output Generation), after Eq. (13)]
    "The control signal u(t) directly affects the embeddings and positional encodings, thereby influencing the self-attention mechanism and the subsequent feed-forward network. This results in the generation of the output σ(t+1) that is optimized based on the PID controller’s adjustments."

    Equations (8)-(13) merely declare that u(t) appears at each transformer stage; no minimization, stability, or convergence theorem is proved. Calling the resulting output 'optimized based on the PID controller's adjustments' is a label attached to the definition, not a consequence of any derived dynamics. The claimed optimization is equivalent to the assumption that injecting u(t) into every layer improves the LLM output, which is the very claim the paper is supposed to establish.

full rationale

The paper contains no load-bearing self-citation chain: the only author self-citations are routine FPGA timing references ([35], [36]), and the central prompt-control equations do not rest on them. The circularity score comes instead from two places where the paper's own text makes the target conclusion an input. First, the FPGA demonstration assumes that after the LLM processes the updated prompt, y(1) takes values closer to the setpoint ('might be'); this is a constructed outcome, so the displayed error reduction is forced rather than predicted. Second, the text describes the LLM output as 'optimized based on the PID controller's adjustments' immediately after defining equations that simply place u(t) inside embeddings, positional encodings, attention, and feed-forward layers; the word 'optimized' is a definitional assertion, not a derived result. Additional serious problems, such as the undefined operation p(t)+u(t) on discrete token sequences and the lack of any convergence conditions on f, g, phi, eta, and nu, are correctness and validity concerns rather than circularity, but they reinforce that the claimed convergent loop has not been demonstrated. The paper itself concedes in Section I that 'the follow-up publication will detail the practical implementation and evaluation,' which confirms that the mathematical proposal is not validated by any measured controller-LLM interaction. Overall, the central demonstration is partially circular because its key improvement is assumed, and the claimed optimization is definitionally attached to the control signal.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on treating text prompts as vectors, assuming linear control laws remain useful for a nonlinear stochastic plant, and choosing gains without data. No empirical validation appears; the paper says implementation and code will follow in a separate publication.

free parameters (3)
  • PID gains Kp, Ki, Kd = Kp=0.6, Ki=0.1, Kd=0.05
    Chosen by hand in Section VI-B; no tuning procedure, sensitivity analysis, or data-driven fitting is provided.
  • Setpoint r(t) = 60%
    Arbitrarily chosen in Section VI-B; no justification for the target resource utilization.
  • Feedback gain beta = 1
    Assumed in Section VI-A3 with no motivation or analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLM output can be modeled as a plant y = phi(f(p)) with additive noise
    Eqs (3) to (7) treat the mapping from prompts to final output as a state-space plant, but no evidence or range of validity is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear PID control principles remain effective when the plant is nonlinear and stochastic
    Section III-B acknowledges nonlinearity and stochasticity, then applies linear PID without stability or convergence conditions.
  • ad hoc to paper Adding a real-valued control signal to a prompt and to positional indices is well-defined
    Eqs (2), (8), and (9); prompts are discrete token sequences, so this operation is not defined in the paper.
  • domain assumption Error e(t)=r(t)-y(t) can be computed between desired behavior and LLM textual output
    Section III-A; no evaluation metric or embedding distance is specified.
invented entities (1)
  • Control signal u(t) injected into token embeddings and positional encodings
    purpose: To let PID adjustments directly reshape the transformer's attention and output distribution
    Eqs (8) to (10) propose a mechanism not implemented or measured anywhere in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Linear Feedback Control Systems for Iterative Prompt Optimization in Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XD3NLLTK

@misc{pith2026250111979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Linear Feedback Control Systems for Iterative Prompt Optimization in Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XD3NLLTK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11979}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized various applications by generating outputs based on given prompts. However, achieving the desired output requires iterative prompt refinement. This paper presents a novel approach that draws parallels between the iterative prompt optimization process in LLMs and feedback control systems. We iteratively refine the prompt by treating the deviation between the LLM output and the desired result as an error term until the output criteria are met. This process is akin to a feedback control system, where the LLM, despite being non-linear and non-deterministic, is managed using principles from linear feedback control systems. We explore the application of different types of controllers within this framework, providing a mathematical foundation for integrating linear feedback control mechanisms with LLMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11979 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. General feedback control system. Setpoint Feedback Controller Output Feeback Gain - + System (PID) Prompt Update LLM (OpenAI GPT) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Large language models: a comprehensive survey of its applications, challenges, limitations, and future prospects,

    M. U. Hadi, Q. Al Tashi, A. Shah, R. Qureshi, A. Muneer, M. Irfan, A. Zafar, M. B. Shaikh, N. Akhtar, J. Wu et al., “Large language models: a comprehensive survey of its applications, challenges, limitations, and future prospects,” Authorea Preprints, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Assessing the proficiency of large language models in automatic feedback generation: An evaluation study,

    W. Dai, Y .-S. Tsai, J. Lin, A. Aldino, H. Jin, T. Li, D. Ga ˇsevi´c, and G. Chen, “Assessing the proficiency of large language models in automatic feedback generation: An evaluation study,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, p. 100299, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,

    L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray et al. , “Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 35, pp. 27 730–27 744, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Ozbay, Introduction to feedback control theory

    H. Ozbay, Introduction to feedback control theory . CrC Press, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    K. J. ˚Astr¨om and R. Murray, Feedback systems: an introduction for scientists and engineers . Princeton university press, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Llm is like a box of chocolates: the non-determinism of chatgpt in code generation,

    S. Ouyang, J. M. Zhang, M. Harman, and M. Wang, “Llm is like a box of chocolates: the non-determinism of chatgpt in code generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02828, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Optimal feedback control for linear systems with input delays revisited,

    Y . Zhou and Z. Wang, “Optimal feedback control for linear systems with input delays revisited,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications , vol. 163, pp. 989–1017, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    M. A. Johnson and M. H. Moradi, PID control. Springer, 2005

    work page 2005

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Prompting is program- ming: A query language for large language models,

    L. Beurer-Kellner, M. Fischer, and M. Vechev, “Prompting is program- ming: A query language for large language models,” Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages , vol. 7, no. PLDI, pp. 1946–1969, 2023

    1946

  2. [10]

    A review of pid control, tuning methods and applications,

    R. P. Borase, D. Maghade, S. Sondkar, and S. Pawar, “A review of pid control, tuning methods and applications,” International Journal of Dynamics and Control , vol. 9, pp. 818–827, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Diffloop: Tuning pid controllers by differentiating through the feedback loop,

    A. R. Kumar and P. J. Ramadge, “Diffloop: Tuning pid controllers by differentiating through the feedback loop,” in 2021 55th Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems (CISS) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  4. [12]

    Ziegler-nichols tuning method: Understanding the pid controller,

    V . V . Patel, “Ziegler-nichols tuning method: Understanding the pid controller,” Resonance, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1385–1397, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Chatgpt and open-ai models: A preliminary review,

    K. I. Roumeliotis and N. D. Tselikas, “Chatgpt and open-ai models: A preliminary review,” Future Internet, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 192, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Stochastic llms do not understand language: towards symbolic, explainable and ontologically based llms,

    W. S. Saba, “Stochastic llms do not understand language: towards symbolic, explainable and ontologically based llms,” in International Conference on Conceptual Modeling . Springer, 2023, pp. 3–19

    2023

  7. [15]

    A comprehensive overview of large language models,

    H. Naveed, A. U. Khan, S. Qiu, M. Saqib, S. Anwar, M. Usman, N. Akhtar, N. Barnes, and A. Mian, “A comprehensive overview of large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06435 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A review on large language models: Architectures, applications, taxonomies, open issues and challenges,

    M. A. K. Raiaan, M. S. H. Mukta, K. Fatema, N. M. Fahad, S. Sakib, M. M. J. Mim, J. Ahmad, M. E. Ali, and S. Azam, “A review on large language models: Architectures, applications, taxonomies, open issues and challenges,” IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Towards trustworthy llms: a review on debiasing and dehallucinating in large language models,

    Z. Lin, S. Guan, W. Zhang, H. Zhang, Y . Li, and H. Zhang, “Towards trustworthy llms: a review on debiasing and dehallucinating in large language models,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 1–50, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. D. M.-W. C. Kenton and L. K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Proceedings of naacL-HLT, vol. 1. Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2019, p. 2

    2019

  11. [19]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    A review of current trends, techniques, and challenges in large language models (llms),

    R. Patil and V . Gudivada, “A review of current trends, techniques, and challenges in large language models (llms),” Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 5, p. 2074, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Low-rank approximation for sparse attention in multi-modal llms,

    L. Song, Y . Chen, S. Yang, X. Ding, Y . Ge, Y .-C. Chen, and Y . Shan, “Low-rank approximation for sparse attention in multi-modal llms,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 13 763–13 773

    2024

  14. [22]

    Jump to conclusions: Short-cutting transformers with linear transformations,

    A. Y . Din, T. Karidi, L. Choshen, and M. Geva, “Jump to conclusions: Short-cutting transformers with linear transformations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.09435, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Chat gpt–a technological remedy or challenge for education system,

    S. Sharma and R. Yadav, “Chat gpt–a technological remedy or challenge for education system,” Global Journal of Enterprise Information System , vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 46–51, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Chat gpt & google bard ai: A review,

    S. K. Singh, S. Kumar, and P. S. Mehra, “Chat gpt & google bard ai: A review,” in 2023 International Conference on IoT, Communication and Automation Technology (ICICAT). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  17. [25]

    An introduction to microsoft copilot,

    J. Stratton, “An introduction to microsoft copilot,” inCopilot for Microsoft 365: Harness the Power of Generative AI in the Microsoft Apps You Use Every Day. Springer, 2024, pp. 19–35

    2024

  18. [26]

    Human-centered llm-agent user interface: A position paper,

    D. Chin, Y . Wang, and G. Xia, “Human-centered llm-agent user interface: A position paper,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13050 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gpt understands, too,

    X. Liu, Y . Zheng, Z. Du, M. Ding, Y . Qian, Z. Yang, and J. Tang, “Gpt understands, too,” AI Open, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    (why) is my prompt getting worse? rethinking regression testing for evolving llm apis,

    W. Ma, C. Yang, and C. K ¨astner, “(why) is my prompt getting worse? rethinking regression testing for evolving llm apis,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 3rd International Conference on AI Engineering-Software Engineering for AI , 2024, pp. 166–171

    2024

  21. [29]

    A comparative analysis of pid, lead, lag, lead-lag, and cascaded lead controllers for a drug infusion system,

    Z. K. Jadoon, S. Shakeel, A. Saleem, A. Khaqan, S. Shuja, Q. Ul-Hasan, S. A. Malik, and R. Ali Riaz, “A comparative analysis of pid, lead, lag, lead-lag, and cascaded lead controllers for a drug infusion system,” Journal of healthcare engineering , vol. 2017, no. 1, p. 3153252, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Linear quadratic regulator controllers for regulation of the dc- bus voltage in a hybrid energy system: Modeling, design and experimental validation,

    M. A. Abdullah, A. Q. Al-Shetwi, M. Mansor, M. Hannan, C. W. Tan, and A. Yatim, “Linear quadratic regulator controllers for regulation of the dc- bus voltage in a hybrid energy system: Modeling, design and experimental validation,” Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessmen...

    2022

  23. [31]

    Mathematical modelling, analysis and design of fuzzy logic controller for the control of ventilation systems using matlab fuzzy logic toolbox,

    S. Sharma and A. J. Obaid, “Mathematical modelling, analysis and design of fuzzy logic controller for the control of ventilation systems using matlab fuzzy logic toolbox,” Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics , vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 843–849, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    A scalable and efficient convolutional neural network accelerator using hls for a system-on-chip design,

    K. Bjerge, J. H. Schougaard, and D. E. Larsen, “A scalable and efficient convolutional neural network accelerator using hls for a system-on-chip design,” Microprocessors and microsystems, vol. 87, p. 104363, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    A framework for modeling, optimizing, and implementing dnns on fpga using hls,

    M. Shahshahani, B. Khabbazan, M. Sabri, and D. Bhatia, “A framework for modeling, optimizing, and implementing dnns on fpga using hls,” in 2020 IEEE 14th Dallas Circuits and Systems Conference (DCAS) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  26. [34]

    Efficient utilization of dsps and brams revisited: New aes-gcm recipes on fpgas,

    E. B. Kavun, N. Mentens, J. Vliegen, and T. Yal c ¸ın, “Efficient utilization of dsps and brams revisited: New aes-gcm recipes on fpgas,” in 2019 International Conference on ReConFigurable Computing and FPGAs (ReConFig). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–2

    2019

  27. [35]

    Securing decision tree inference using order-preserving cryptography,

    R. R. Karn, K. Nawaz, and I. A. M. Elfadel, “Securing decision tree inference using order-preserving cryptography,” in 2023 IEEE 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Circuits and Systems (AICAS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  28. [36]

    Code-based cryptography for confidential inference on fpgas: An end-to-end methodology,

    R. R. Karn, J. Knechtel, and O. Sinanoglu, “Code-based cryptography for confidential inference on fpgas: An end-to-end methodology,” in 2024 25th International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design (ISQED) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–8

    2024

  29. [37]

    Xilinx vivado high level synthesis: Case studies,

    D. O’Loughlin, A. Coffey, F. Callaly, D. Lyons, and F. Morgan, “Xilinx vivado high level synthesis: Case studies,” 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    Chapter 6: Introduction to intel quartus prime,

    R. Snider, “Chapter 6: Introduction to intel quartus prime,” in Advanced Digital System Design using SoC FPGAs: An Integrated Hardware/Soft- ware Approach. Springer, 2022, pp. 55–86

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.