AITEE -- Agentic Tutor for Electrical Engineering

Alexander Bernhardt; Christian Bernhardt; Christopher Knievel

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

AITEE -- Agentic Tutor for Electrical Engineering

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tutoring agent that retrieves lecture context by circuit shape and verifies computations with SPICE simulation lifts LLM accuracy on first-semester DC circuit problems from around 0.5 to 0.85–0.96.

desk verdict A promising prototype with an unvalidated retriever; the headline gains are conditional until the GNN similarity is measured directly. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21582 v1 pith:G3X4ZJNP submitted 2025-05-27 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC

Christopher Knievel , Alexander Bernhardt , Christian Bernhardt This is my paper

classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.HC

keywords intelligenttutoringsystemselectricalengineeringeducationgraphneuralnetworkslargelanguagemodelsretrieval-augmentedgenerationSPICEsimulationcircuitsimilaritySocraticdialogue

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that an agentic tutoring system—one that converts a student's circuit image into a graph, retrieves the matching lecture unit by graph similarity, and checks arithmetic with a circuit simulator—can make LLMs reliable enough to tutor first-semester electrical engineering. Across four models, the full system raises accuracy on DC circuit tasks from about 0.47–0.69 at prompting-only baseline to 0.85–0.96, with the medium 70B model approaching the largest closed model. The authors argue this shows agentic tool use, not model size, is what closes the gap, and that such tutors can scale personalized instruction.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a circuit-similarity measure built from GraphSAGE graph embeddings combined with hand-designed metadata features: a sigmoid of component count, a linear source-type term, and a binary single/multiple-source flag, all normalized and concatenated. Cosine similarity between these embeddings tells which eight circuit classes a given circuit belongs to, and those embeddings index lecture units through multi-representation indexing, where each unit is represented by example netlists. The other load-bearing tool is PySpice, which takes the reconstructed netlist and returns exact voltages and currents, letting the LLM focus on method. The similarity measure carries the argument: when it retrieves the right unit, even a 70B model performs at tutor level; without it, advanced RAG over text chunks fails to beat prompting alone.

What would settle it

Run AITEE's task set three ways: with the GNN-retrieved unit, with a randomly chosen unit, and with the oracle (hand-picked) correct unit. If random-chunk performance is close to GNN-retrieved performance, retrieval is not the cause of the gains; if oracle is much higher, retrieval is still a bottleneck. Also directly test retrieval on out-of-distribution circuits and report precision@1 against a labeled ground-truth unit; the central claim collapses if retrieval accuracy is at chance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the bottleneck in LLM-based circuit tutoring is not parametric knowledge of electric circuit fundamentals but the inability to map a concrete circuit—especially an unfamiliar or complex one—to the right solution method. AITEE attacks this with a graph neural network that embeds circuits so cosine similarity between embeddings reflects whether two circuits share a solution approach, and with multi-representation indexing that uses those embeddings to retrieve the relevant lecture unit. Adding a SPICE simulation to offload arithmetic lifts accuracy to near-optimal on most circuit classes; only superposition tasks with current-direction mismatches remain error-prone.

Load-bearing premise

The GNN similarity measure, trained on only 150 netlists and combined with hand-set metadata rules, reliably retrieves the correct lecture unit for any circuit a student draws, including circuits outside that small training distribution; the paper never measures retrieval accuracy directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The full agentic pipeline makes medium-sized open-source LLMs (Llama 3.1 70B) competitive with large closed models on first-semester DC circuit analysis tasks.
Prompt engineering alone and text-chunk RAG approaches (RAPTOR, RAG-Fusion, HyDE) do not reliably solve Class 7 bridge or Class 6/8 superposition circuits; the graph-indexed retrieval is what unlocks those classes.
Hand-drawn circuits become usable input through YOLOv8 detection plus a line-loss validated inter-node connection method, so students can sketch circuits naturally.
With instruction prompting, all models except the smallest follow Socratic dialogue and do not give away solutions; robustness against false student statements also improves.
Remaining known limits are arithmetic inconsistencies in superposition tasks due to current-direction conventions and a need for real classroom validation.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not directly measure retrieval accuracy; a fair test would compare AITEE's retrieval against an oracle-chunk condition and against a random-chunk condition on the same tasks, to see how much of the gain is really attributable to the GNN similarity versus the simulation and prompt structure.
The GNN was trained on only 150 netlists from the same eight-class taxonomy used to define the heatmap evaluation, so its behavior on out-of-distribution circuits (different component values, unusual topologies, or reconstruction errors from handwriting) is untested; the system's promise depends on that generalization.
The Socratic-dialogue evaluation uses only five dialogues per model with one intentional misinformation insertion, so robustness claims are plausible but not yet established at scale.
The same design pattern—embed a domain artifact, index lecture units by artifact exemplars, and offload arithmetic to a simulator—could transfer to other engineering diagram domains such as logic circuits or control block diagrams whenever a simulator and a similarity notion exist.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version: AITEE is a plausible, well-written prototype that adapts multi-representation indexing to circuit netlists, and its Table V numbers are striking. But the headline improvement depends on a retrieval component that the paper never directly evaluates, so treat the gains as conditional until that's fixed.

What's actually new: the idea of using representative netlists as retrieval indices for lecture units, with a GraphSAGE embedding plus cosine similarity to match a student's circuit. That's a sensible adaptation of MRI, and the integration with SPICE as an arithmetic checker is neat. The circuit reconstruction pipeline with corner/intersection detection is a real engineering effort, and the YOLO results look solid. The paper is honest about limitations: it flags arithmetic errors, dialogue robustness, and the need for real student trials.

Where it's soft: the retriever is the load-bearing component and it's never measured directly. Figure 8 is a heatmap for two circuits per class, drawn from the same taxonomy used to define the index circuits. The MRI experiments fold retrieval into end-task accuracy, so if a wrong unit is retrieved, the LLM can do worse (they show this with Naive RAG). The test tasks share class labels with the index circuits, so near-duplicate matching is a real possibility; no hit rate, MRR, or out-of-distribution test is reported. The metadata features (Eqs. 5-6) might dominate the similarity, making the GNN's structural contribution untested. Sample sizes are small, no significance tests, and the end-to-end system (image to netlist to retrieval to tutoring) is never run as a whole. Code and evaluation data aren't released, apart from the YOLO dataset link.

None of this contradicts the central direction. The gains in Table V are large and the manual scoring is described, which is more than many papers do. But the strength of the claim—'significantly outperforms'—is not yet supported by the evidence as written.

For whom: people building LLM-based tutoring systems for technical domains, and anyone working on circuit retrieval or GNN-based similarity. It deserves a serious referee, but the reviewer should ask for direct retrieval evaluation, out-of-distribution tests, significance testing, and artifact release. If those come back, this could be a solid contribution; right now it's a promising prototype with an unvalidated core.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents AITEE, an agentic tutoring system for first-semester electrical engineering. The system detects circuit components and connections from digital or hand-drawn images with YOLOv8, converts the circuit to a netlist and a graph, and computes a similarity between circuits using a GraphSAGE embedding combined with hand-crafted metadata features (component counts, source configuration). The similarity is used in a multi-representation-indexing RAG scheme: each lecture unit is indexed by representative netlists ('index-circuits'), and the most similar unit is retrieved for the LLM prompt. A PySpice simulation of the netlist is added to validate arithmetic results. Four LLMs (Llama 3.1 8B/70B/405B, Claude 3.5 Sonnet) are evaluated on netlist understanding and on solving DC circuit tasks under various prompting and retrieval strategies. The authors report large accuracy gains from 1-Shot-CoT+MRI+Sim over prompting-only baselines, and a separate evaluation of Socratic dialogue and robustness to misinformation. The dataset of 831 hand-drawn resistor circuits is released.

Significance. If the reported gains are reliable, AITEE would be a valuable contribution to intelligent tutoring for electrical engineering: it combines a practical input modality (hand-drawn circuits), a domain-specific retrieval mechanism, and simulation-based grounding, and it shows that mid-size open-weight LLMs can reach near the level of the best closed-source model on the evaluated tasks. The paper also contributes a new labeled dataset of European-symbol circuit diagrams. However, the central empirical claims currently rest on a small evaluation set with no statistical analysis, and the retrieval component that drives the main improvement is never directly measured. These gaps should be addressed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (5)

[Section III-C, Section IV-B3, Figure 8] The retrieval quality of the GNN-based similarity measure is never directly evaluated. The only evidence is the cosine similarity heatmap in Figure 8 for 2 circuits per class drawn from the same taxonomy used to define the eight classes, and the MRI experiments in Section IV-B3 fold retrieval accuracy into end-task accuracy. Because Section IV-B2 shows that wrong retrieved context can degrade performance (Naive RAG), the Table V gains for 1-Shot-CoT+MRI and +Sim depend entirely on the retriever returning the correct lecture unit. I ask for a direct retrieval evaluation: hit rate at k, mean reciprocal rank, or similar, on held-out circuits, including circuits that are not near-duplicates of the index-circuits generated for each lecture unit.
[Section IV-B, Table V] The comparison between 1-Shot-CoT+MRI and the baseline conditions is confounded by the number of CoT examples. The table compares 1-Shot-CoT+MRI/+Sim against 3-Shot-CoT without MRI, but a 1-Shot-CoT-only control is never reported. Since the paper states the number of exemplars was empirically set to three for CoT prompting, the improvement attributed to MRI could partly be an effect of changing the shot count. Please add a 1-Shot-CoT-only condition or use 3-Shot-CoT+MRI, so that the MRI contribution is isolated.
[Section IV-B, Table V, Figure 11] The evaluation set is too small to support the word 'significantly' in the abstract and conclusions. Section IV-B reports 'one or two tasks for a subset of circuit classes' (five class groups in Figure 11), with a single accuracy number per model-condition cell. No confidence intervals, bootstrap estimates, or significance tests are reported. I request the exact number of tasks and subtasks, and a statistical analysis (e.g., paired bootstrap or Wilcoxon test over tasks) to justify the claim of significant outperformance.
[Section III-C, Equations (5)-(6)] The relative contribution of the learned graph embedding and the hand-set metadata features to the similarity measure is never disentangled. The sigmoid constants (c1=1, c2=7.5) and the source combination weights (0.33, 0.66, 0.01) are chosen ad hoc, and the GNN classification accuracy on the 30-netlist validation set is not reported. Without an ablation (embedding-only vs. metadata-only vs. both) and without the GNN validation accuracy, it is unclear whether the GraphSAGE component adds anything over the simple metadata counts. Please report the retrieval/classification performance for each component separately.
[Section IV-A, Section IV-B] The reliability of the evaluation is not established. Table IV relies on GPT-4.0 as a judge with no validation against human raters, and the task accuracy numbers in Table V come from manual scoring with no inter-rater reliability reported, despite the statement that 'the achievable partial points were defined in advance.' I recommend including the detailed scoring rubric in the appendix, having a second rater score a random subset, and reporting agreement (e.g., Cohen's kappa), or at least reporting a comparison of the GPT-4.0 judge with human ratings.

minor comments (5)

[Section III-C, Eq. (4)] The notation N − b,k is typeset awkwardly; please define it unambiguously as the number of interval points excluding those inside component bounding boxes.
[Section IV-B, Figure 11] The figure caption calls it a 'stacked bar histogram,' but the plot appears to be a grouped bar chart; please correct the caption.
[Section II, Fig. 2] The abbreviation 'MRI' and the 'Sim' tool are not labeled in the architecture figure; labeling them would help readers map the figure to Section IV-B3.
[Section III-B] The heuristic threshold for the line-loss metric is described only qualitatively; reporting the threshold value and a sensitivity check would improve reproducibility.
[Section IV-C] The dialogue dataset size is unclear. The text says 'each question–circuit pair ... extended to include five user queries and five system responses' and then 'this methodology results in five dialogs,' which is ambiguous about how many initial questions were used. Please state the exact number of dialogues.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central Table V accuracy gains are not forced by construction, though the retriever is never directly validated.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an end-to-end accuracy comparison on first-semester DC circuit tasks, and the final evaluations are not tautological: solutions were checked manually with pre-defined partial points, independent of the retrieval definitions. The MRI+Sim gain in Table V is also not an identity, because the paper itself shows that adding retrieval can hurt performance (3-Shot-CoT + Naive RAG drops Llama 3.1 70B from 0.57 to 0.38), so the benefit of the GNN-based retriever is an empirical outcome rather than a consequence of how the embedding or metadata functions are defined. Equations (5) and (6) are fixed hand-set scalars inside the embedding; they are not fitted to the evaluation tasks and do not by themselves determine whether a circuit is solved correctly. The only self-citation is [29], a released dataset used to train the YOLO component detector; it supplies no theorem, uniqueness claim, or ansatz that forces the main result, and the object-detection component is not where the headline accuracy claim is established. The legitimate concern raised by the paper's own evidence is an evaluation gap: Section III-C2 validates the graph embeddings only through Figure 8, a class-separation heatmap on the same eight-class taxonomy used to define the lecture-index netlists, and no direct retrieval hit rate or MRR is reported for Section IV-B3. That means the conclusion in Section V that the 'graph-based similarity measure effectively retrieves relevant contextual information' is under-supported, and the contribution of retrieval to the Table V gains is not isolated. Under-support and risk of near-duplicate test/index circuits are correctness concerns, not circular reductions: no equation or fitted parameter in the paper is shown to equal its own predicted output by construction. Accordingly, the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the trained GNN and detector weights, the hand-calibrated metadata functions, and the validity of using representative netlists as retrieval indices. The GNN weights (150 training netlists) and YOLO weights (831 images) are fitted to data. The metadata constants were chosen by hand rather than learned or externally justified. The retrieval index design is author-constructed and not independently validated. These do not make the results circular in a strong sense, but they are assumptions the reader must grant before accepting the accuracy numbers.

free parameters (6)

GraphSAGE network weights theta = trained on 150 netlists, specifics not reported
Graph embedding quality, and hence retrieval, depends on these trained weights; training details are not fully specified.
Metadata sigmoid constants c1, c2 = c1=1, c2=7.5
Hand-calibrated in Eq. 5 to normalize component counts to [0,1]; no fitting procedure given.
Metadata source-combination weights = 0.33 (voltage), 0.66 (current), 0.01 (interaction)
Hand-chosen linear combination in Eq. 6 for source type distribution; no learned fit or justification beyond heuristic.
Inter-node connection line-loss threshold = not reported
Described as 'heuristically determined linear threshold value' in Section III-B; affects netlist reconstruction accuracy.
YOLOv8 detector weights = trained on 831 student-drawn circuits, mAP0.5 0.971 for YOLOv8s
Component detection performance is measured, but the effect of detection errors on downstream tutoring is not evaluated.
Retrieval top-k chunks = 3 chunks
The number of chunks retrieved was fixed at 3; sensitivity not reported.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper The eight circuit classes in Table III cover the methodological variation in first-semester EE circuit analysis.
The taxonomy is defined by the authors to train the GNN and structure retrieval; no external validation that it is complete.
ad hoc to paper Cosine similarity between learned graph embeddings and hand-crafted metadata features is a valid measure of methodological similarity between circuits.
This is the core retrieval assumption, stated in Section III-A and III-C; not benchmarked against alternative similarity measures.
ad hoc to paper Each lecture unit can be indexed by one or more 'typical' representative circuits such that the retrieved unit contains the correct solution method for a similar query circuit.
Underpins the MRI adaptation in Section IV-B3; the mapping from units to representative netlists is author-constructed and not independently evaluated.
domain assumption GPT-4.0 as an LLM judge provides a valid scoring of netlist descriptions for the purpose of comparing models.
Used in Section IV-A following [34], but no validation of judge reliability on this domain.
standard math Kirchhoff's laws and linear algebra correctly describe the DC circuits used in the tasks.
Domain background, standard EE theory.

invented entities (1)

Index-circuits
purpose: Representative netlists used as retrieval indices for lecture units in the MRI-based RAG pipeline
Introduced in Section IV-B3; no validation outside this paper. Retrieval quality is not directly measured.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AITEE -- Agentic Tutor for Electrical Engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G3X4ZJNP

@misc{pith2026250521582,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AITEE -- Agentic Tutor for Electrical Engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G3X4ZJNP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21582}
}

read the original abstract

Intelligent tutoring systems combined with large language models offer a promising approach to address students' diverse needs and promote self-efficacious learning. While large language models possess good foundational knowledge of electrical engineering basics, they remain insufficiently capable of addressing specific questions about electrical circuits. In this paper, we present AITEE, an agent-based tutoring system for electrical engineering designed to accompany students throughout their learning process, offer individualized support, and promote self-directed learning. AITEE supports both hand-drawn and digital circuits through an adapted circuit reconstruction process, enabling natural interaction with students. Our novel graph-based similarity measure identifies relevant context from lecture materials through a retrieval augmented generation approach, while parallel Spice simulation further enhances accuracy in applying solution methodologies. The system implements a Socratic dialogue to foster learner autonomy through guided questioning. Experimental evaluations demonstrate that AITEE significantly outperforms baseline approaches in domain-specific knowledge application, with even medium-sized LLM models showing acceptable performance. Our results highlight the potential of agentic tutors to deliver scalable, personalized, and effective learning environments for electrical engineering education.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21582 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of the required components of AITEE. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Image of a circuit with netlist nodes. R1 N003 N006 R2 N002 N001 R3 N004 N002 R4 N006 N004 R5 N005 N002 R6 N005 N005 U1 N001 N003 TABLE I: Netlist of the circuit shown to the left. number of neighbors, and centrality, which serve as node embeddings. The resulting graph of the circuit in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Graph representation of the exemplary circuit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Output of the object detection for the example circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Illustration of the process for recognizing the connec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Process to calculate normalized graph embeddings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Cosine Similarity Map of Circuit Embeddings. Heat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Baseline prompt example for the generation of circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Chain-of-thought prompt example for the generation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Accuracy by Circuit Class for the given LLM configurations. Stacked bar histogram detailing the accuracy (y-axis) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Designing Needs- and Attention-Aware AI Learning Tools for Engineering Education: Insights from Psychological Outcomes
cs.HC 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Engineering students perceive AI chatbots as most helpful for relieving competence frustration, less for autonomy, and least for relatedness; inattention weakens those perceived benefits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Are We There Yet? - A Systematic Literature Review on Chatbots in Education,

S. Wollny, J. Schneider, D. Di Mitri, J. Weidlich, M. Rittberger, and H. Drachsler, “Are We There Yet? - A Systematic Literature Review on Chatbots in Education,” Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, p. 654924, Jul. 2021

work page 2021
[2]

Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning,

D. A. Wiley and E. Edwards, “Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning,” The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2002

work page 2002
[3]

Role of ai chatbots in education: systematic literature review,

L. Labadze, M. Grigolia, and L. Machaidze, “Role of ai chatbots in education: systematic literature review,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , vol. 20, pp. 1–17, 12 2023

work page 2023
[4]

Intelligent Tutoring Systems with Conversational Dialogue,

A. C. Graesser, K. VanLehn, C. P. Rose, P. W. Jordan, and D. Harter, “Intelligent Tutoring Systems with Conversational Dialogue,” AI Mag- azine, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 39–39, Dec. 2001

work page 2001
[5]

Unleashing the Potential of Chatbots in Education: A State-Of-The-Art Analysis,

R. Winkler and M. S ¨ollner, “Unleashing the Potential of Chatbots in Education: A State-Of-The-Art Analysis,” Academy of Management Proceedings, vol. 2018, p. 15903, Apr. 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational perspectives on preflection in self-regulated online learning,

T. Lehmann, I. H ¨ahnlein, and D. Ifenthaler, “Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational perspectives on preflection in self-regulated online learning,” Computers in Human Behavior , vol. 32, pp. 313–323, Mar. 2014

work page 2014
[7]

On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization,

J. Maynez, S. Narayan, B. Bohnet, and R. McDonald, “On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization,” in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , D. Jurafsky, J. Chai, N. Schluter, and J. Tetreault, Eds. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2020, pp. 1906–1919

work page 2020
[8]

Rediscovering the use of chatbots in education: A systematic literature review,

J. Quiroga Perez, T. Daradoumis, and J. Puig, “Rediscovering the use of chatbots in education: A systematic literature review,” Computer Applications in Engineering Education , vol. 28, Sep. 2020

work page 2020

Show all 44 references

[9]

A Review of the Practical Applications of Pedagogic Con- versational Agents to Be Used in School and University Classrooms,

D. Mar ´ın, “A Review of the Practical Applications of Pedagogic Con- versational Agents to Be Used in School and University Classrooms,” Digital, vol. 1, pp. 18–33, Jan. 2021

2021
[10]

Do You Think You Can? The Influence of Student Self-Efficacy on the Effectiveness of Tutorial Dialogue for Computer Science,

J. B. Wiggins, J. F. Grafsgaard, K. E. Boyer, E. N. Wiebe, and J. C. Lester, “Do You Think You Can? The Influence of Student Self-Efficacy on the Effectiveness of Tutorial Dialogue for Computer Science,” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , vol. 27, ...

2017
[11]

Self-Regulation, Self-Efficacy, and Fear of Failure Interactions with How Novices Use LLMs to Solve Programming Problems,

L. E. Margulieux, J. Prather, B. N. Reeves, B. A. Becker, G. Cetin Uzun, D. Loksa, J. Leinonen, and P. Denny, “Self-Regulation, Self-Efficacy, and Fear of Failure Interactions with How Novices Use LLMs to Solve Programming Problems,” in Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovation an...

2024
[12]

Application of an intelligent tutoring system in elec- trical engineering education,

M. Negnevitsky, “Application of an intelligent tutoring system in elec- trical engineering education,” in 1996 IEEE International Conference on Multi Media Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings , Jul. 1996, pp. 491–497

1996
[13]

Enhancing Critical Thinking in Education by means of a Socratic Chatbot,

L. Favero, J. A. P ´erez-Ortiz, T. K¨aser, and N. Oliver, “Enhancing Critical Thinking in Education by means of a Socratic Chatbot,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05511, 2024

2024 arXiv
[14]

SPL: A Socratic Playground for Learning Powered by Large Language Model,

L. Zhang, J. Lin, Z. Kuang, S. Xu, and X. Hu, “SPL: A Socratic Playground for Learning Powered by Large Language Model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13919, Sep. 2024

2024 arXiv
[15]

Dense X Retrieval: What Retrieval Granularity Should We Use?

T. Chen, H. Wang, S. Chen, W. Yu, K. Ma, X. Zhao, H. Zhang, and D. Yu, “Dense X Retrieval: What Retrieval Granularity Should We Use?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06648 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[16]

Chatbots Put to the Test in Math and Logic Problems: A Comparison and Assessment of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Google Bard,

V . Plevris, G. Papazafeiropoulos, and A. Jim ´enez Rios, “Chatbots Put to the Test in Math and Logic Problems: A Comparison and Assessment of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Google Bard,” AI, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 949–969, Dec. 2023. 12

2023
[17]

Hand-Drawn Electrical Circuit Recognition using Object Detection and Node Recognition,

R. R. Reddy and M. R. Panicker, “Hand-Drawn Electrical Circuit Recognition using Object Detection and Node Recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11559, Nov. 2021

2021 arXiv
[18]

Computer Vision based Frame- work for Power Converter Identification and Analysis,

B. Bohara and H. S. Krishnamoorthy, “Computer Vision based Frame- work for Power Converter Identification and Analysis,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems (PEDES), Dec. 2022, pp. 1–6

2022
[19]

ElectroNet: An Enhanced Model for Small-Scale Object Detection in Electrical Schematic Diagrams,

W. Uzair, D. Chai, and A. Rassau, “ElectroNet: An Enhanced Model for Small-Scale Object Detection in Electrical Schematic Diagrams,” preprint Research Square, Jul. 2023

2023
[20]

The connected- component labeling problem: A review of state-of-the-art algorithms,

L. He, X. Ren, Q. Gao, X. Zhao, B. Yao, and Y . Chao, “The connected- component labeling problem: A review of state-of-the-art algorithms,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 70, pp. 25–43, Oct. 2017

2017
[21]

ElectroVizQA: How well do Multi-modal LLMs perform in Electronics Visual Question Answering?

P. S. Meshram, S. Karthikeyan, Bhavya, and S. Bhat, “ElectroVizQA: How well do Multi-modal LLMs perform in Electronics Visual Question Answering?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00102 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[22]

A graph placement methodology for fast chip design,

A. Mirhoseini, A. Goldie, M. Yazgan, J. W. Jiang, E. Songhori, S. Wang, Y .-J. Lee, E. Johnson, O. Pathak, A. Nova, J. Pak, A. Tong, K. Srinivasa, W. Hang, E. Tuncer, Q. V . Le, J. Laudon, R. Ho, R. Carpenter, and J. Dean, “A graph placement methodology for fast chip design,” ...

2021
[23]

Circuit design completion using graph neural networks,

A. Said, M. Shabbir, B. Broll, W. Abbas, P. V ¨olgyesi, and X. Kout- soukos, “Circuit design completion using graph neural networks,”Neural Computing and Applications , vol. 35, no. 16, pp. 12 145–12 157, Jun. 2023

2023
[24]

Circuit2Graph: Circuits With Graph Neural Networks,

Y . Yamakaji, H. Shouno, and K. Fukushima, “Circuit2Graph: Circuits With Graph Neural Networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 51 818–51 827, 2024

2024
[25]

Deep Metric Learning for Computer Vision: A Brief Overview,

D. D. Mohan, B. Jawade, S. Setlur, and V . Govindaraj, “Deep Metric Learning for Computer Vision: A Brief Overview,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10046, Dec. 2023

2023 arXiv
[26]

Analogies Explained: Towards Understand- ing Word Embeddings,

C. Allen and T. Hospedales, “Analogies Explained: Towards Understand- ing Word Embeddings,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.09813 , May 2019

1901 arXiv
[27]

Ultralytics YOLO,

G. Jocher, J. Qiu, and A. Chaurasia, “Ultralytics YOLO,” Jan. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics

2023
[28]

YOLO-based Object Detec- tion Models: A Review and its Applications,

A. Vijayakumar and S. Vairavasundaram, “YOLO-based Object Detec- tion Models: A Review and its Applications,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 83, no. 35, pp. 83 535–83 574, Oct. 2024

2024
[29]

Circuit-dataset for AITEE - agentic tutor for electrical engineering,

C. Knievel, A. Bernhardt, and C. Bernhardt, “Circuit-dataset for AITEE - agentic tutor for electrical engineering,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/CKnievel/aitee-dataset

2025
[30]

Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks,

T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 , Feb. 2017

2017 arXiv
[31]

Graph Attention Networks,

P. Veli ˇckovi´c, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Li`o, and Y . Ben- gio, “Graph Attention Networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903, Feb. 2018

2018 arXiv
[32]

Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphs,

W. L. Hamilton, R. Ying, and J. Leskovec, “Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.02216 , Sep. 2018

2018 arXiv
[33]

How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?

K. Xu, W. Hu, J. Leskovec, and S. Jegelka, “How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00826 , Feb. 2019

2019 arXiv
[34]

Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena,

L. Zheng, W.-L. Chiang, Y . Sheng, S. Zhuang, Z. Wu, Y . Zhuang, Z. Lin, Z. Li, D. Li, E. P. Xing, H. Zhang, J. E. Gonzalez, and I. Stoica, “Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05685, Dec. 2023

2023 arXiv
[35]

Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models,

J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, B. Ichter, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. Le, and D. Zhou, “Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903 , Jan. 2023

2023 arXiv
[36]

Language Models are Few-Shot Learners,

T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert- V oss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. C...

2020
[37]

Transforming Learning: Assessing the Efficacy of a Retrieval-Augmented Generation System as a Tutor for Introductory Psychology,

J. J. Slade, A. Hyk, and R. A. R. Gurung, “Transforming Learning: Assessing the Efficacy of a Retrieval-Augmented Generation System as a Tutor for Introductory Psychology,”Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 1827–1830, Sep. 2024

2024
[38]

Enhancing classroom teaching with LLMs and RAG,

E. Mullins, A. Portillo, K. Ruiz Rohena, and A. Piplai, “Enhancing classroom teaching with LLMs and RAG,” in Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education , ser. SIGITE ’24. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Dec. 2024, pp. 145–146

2024
[39]

How to Build an Adaptive AI Tutor for Any Course Using Knowledge Graph- Enhanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (KG-RAG),

C. Dong, Y . Yuan, K. Chen, S. Cheng, and C. Wen, “How to Build an Adaptive AI Tutor for Any Course Using Knowledge Graph- Enhanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (KG-RAG),” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17696, Feb. 2025

2025 arXiv
[40]

RAPTOR: Recursive Abstractive Processing for Tree-Organized Retrieval,

P. Sarthi, S. Abdullah, A. Tuli, S. Khanna, A. Goldie, and C. D. Man- ning, “RAPTOR: Recursive Abstractive Processing for Tree-Organized Retrieval,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, Oct. 2023

2023
[41]

Rag-Fusion: A New Take on Retrieval Augmented Generation,

Z. Rackauckas, “Rag-Fusion: A New Take on Retrieval Augmented Generation,” International Journal on Natural Language Computing , vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 37–47, Feb. 2024

2024
[42]

Precise Zero-Shot Dense Retrieval without Relevance Labels,

L. Gao, X. Ma, J. Lin, and J. Callan, “Precise Zero-Shot Dense Retrieval without Relevance Labels,” inProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), A. Rogers, J. Boyd-Graber, and N. Okazaki, Eds. Toronto, Canad...

2023
[43]

The Impact of Language on Arithmetic Proficiency: A Multilingual Investigation with Cross-Agent Checking Computation,

C.-C. Chen, H. Takamura, I. Kobayashi, and Y . Miyao, “The Impact of Language on Arithmetic Proficiency: A Multilingual Investigation with Cross-Agent Checking Computation,” in Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computationa...

2024
[44]

Pyspice,

F. Salvaire, “Pyspice,” https://pyspice.fabrice-salvaire.fr, 2021

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Are We There Yet? - A Systematic Literature Review on Chatbots in Education,

S. Wollny, J. Schneider, D. Di Mitri, J. Weidlich, M. Rittberger, and H. Drachsler, “Are We There Yet? - A Systematic Literature Review on Chatbots in Education,” Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, p. 654924, Jul. 2021

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning,

D. A. Wiley and E. Edwards, “Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning,” The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2002

work page 2002

[3] [3]

Role of ai chatbots in education: systematic literature review,

L. Labadze, M. Grigolia, and L. Machaidze, “Role of ai chatbots in education: systematic literature review,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , vol. 20, pp. 1–17, 12 2023

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Intelligent Tutoring Systems with Conversational Dialogue,

A. C. Graesser, K. VanLehn, C. P. Rose, P. W. Jordan, and D. Harter, “Intelligent Tutoring Systems with Conversational Dialogue,” AI Mag- azine, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 39–39, Dec. 2001

work page 2001

[5] [5]

Unleashing the Potential of Chatbots in Education: A State-Of-The-Art Analysis,

R. Winkler and M. S ¨ollner, “Unleashing the Potential of Chatbots in Education: A State-Of-The-Art Analysis,” Academy of Management Proceedings, vol. 2018, p. 15903, Apr. 2018

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational perspectives on preflection in self-regulated online learning,

T. Lehmann, I. H ¨ahnlein, and D. Ifenthaler, “Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational perspectives on preflection in self-regulated online learning,” Computers in Human Behavior , vol. 32, pp. 313–323, Mar. 2014

work page 2014

[7] [7]

On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization,

J. Maynez, S. Narayan, B. Bohnet, and R. McDonald, “On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization,” in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , D. Jurafsky, J. Chai, N. Schluter, and J. Tetreault, Eds. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2020, pp. 1906–1919

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Rediscovering the use of chatbots in education: A systematic literature review,

J. Quiroga Perez, T. Daradoumis, and J. Puig, “Rediscovering the use of chatbots in education: A systematic literature review,” Computer Applications in Engineering Education , vol. 28, Sep. 2020

work page 2020