Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

CircuitLM: A Multi-Agent LLM-Aided Design Framework for Generating Circuit Schematics from Natural Language Prompts

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A multi-agent LLM pipeline grounded in a curated component database can turn natural-language circuit requests into schematics that pass automated electrical rule checks at high rates.

desk verdict Useful pipeline and benchmark, but the physical-viability claim is not supported by the circular ERC metric; worth a serious referee but needs genuine external verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.04505 v3 pith:CXC4YHSS submitted 2026-01-08 cs.AI cs.CLcs.SYeess.SY

Khandakar Shakib Al Hasan , Syed Rifat Raiyan , Hasin Mahtab Alvee , Wahid Sadik This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.SYeess.SY
keywords naturallanguagetohardwaremulti-agentLLMframeworkcircuitschematicgenerationretrieval-augmentedelectricalrulecheckingchain-of-thoughtreasoningJSON
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 claims that a multi-agent LLM pipeline grounded in a curated component database can translate natural-language circuit requests into machine-readable schematics that pass automated electrical rule checks at high rates. The central move is to stop the LLM from inventing components or pin labels: every requested part is matched against a local vector database of canonical components with exact pinouts, and only those validated parts proceed to a chain-of-thought reasoning stage and then to structured CircuitJSON output. On a 100-prompt benchmark, the authors report deterministically checked Pass@1 rates of 83–88% across five LLMs, with near-zero fatal errors. The paper also documents a large 'evaluation gap': a separate LLM-as-judge meta-evaluator, which catches protocol-level errors such as UART RX/TX swaps and missing pull-ups, passes only 21–53% of the same circuits. The authors explicitly state that no simulator or physical build was used, so 'physically realizable' should be read as 'passes the paper's own rule-based check.'

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the curated component knowledge base with embedding-based retrieval and exact pinout definitions; it enforces that the generator only wires pins that actually exist. Around it, the pipeline is organized as five sequential stages: component identification, canonical pinout retrieval, chain-of-thought design reasoning, CircuitJSON synthesis, and force-directed visualization. The CircuitJSON format itself is the interchange object that makes the output machine-readable, and the paper's custom graph-based ERC engine parses it into a bipartite component/pin/net graph to test for shorts, logic-level mismatches, missing current-limiting resistors, and floating inputs.

What would settle it

Take the top-scoring ERC-pass outputs from the paper, convert them to a form a standard electronics simulator accepts, and simulate or breadboard them; if a substantial fraction fail to function, damage components, or require unseen corrections, the 'physically viable' claim fails. A cheaper check: add the LLM-judge's most-caught errors (UART RX/TX swaps, missing pull-ups, non-PWM pins) to the ERC rule set and see whether Pass@1 drops toward the 21–53% range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that retrieval grounding plus a reasoning-first pipeline converts unreliable free-text wiring descriptions into schematics that a deterministic checker can validate: by forcing component selection through an embedding-based retrieval step and pin definitions from a curated knowledge base, the framework eliminates the most common hallucination modes (invented parts, invented pins) and reduces fatal errors like VCC–GND shorts to near zero. The authors show this across five LLMs with 83–88% ERC Pass@1, and they show that a semantic LLM judge catches a different class of errors, yielding much lower pass rates. On the paper's own terms, the framework's contribution is to

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that a circuit with zero Fatal and zero Major errors in the authors' custom ERC engine is 'prototyping-ready' and 'physically viable,' even though the ERC engine validates against the same curated knowledge base that guides generation and no simulator or physical test was performed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 83–88% ERC Pass@1 rates hold, LLM-generated schematics become usable as first-draft inputs to EDA tools, potentially cutting the time from idea to prototype.
  • The O(k) scaling property (prompt size depends on the number of needed components, not the library size) suggests the architecture can be extended to much larger industrial component libraries without context-window pressure.
  • The near-total elimination of fatal errors indicates that the chain-of-thought planner reliably establishes power rails and avoids direct shorts, a necessary precondition for any safe autonomous design tool.
  • The documented ERC-vs-LLM-judge gap implies that any production version of such a pipeline would need both deterministic electrical rule checking and a semantic validator, since each catches errors the other misses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable prediction follows from the paper's own logic: if the curated database were replaced with a large, uncurated parts library, Pass@1 would drop—meaning the framework's success is carried by curation quality, not by retrieval or reasoning alone.
  • The authors left simulation as future work; running the top-ERC-pass outputs through a simulator or a breadboard build would provide the missing evidence for 'physically viable,' and the results could diverge sharply from the 88% number.
  • The CircuitJSON format, if adopted, could become a lightweight interchange layer between natural-language prompts and existing netlist-based EDA tools, but the paper notes a direct transpilation to netlists requires engineering outside this work.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents CircuitLM, a five-stage multi-agent LLM pipeline that converts natural-language circuit-design prompts into structured CircuitJSON schematics. Generation is grounded in a curated vector knowledge base of embedded components; the pipeline includes component identification, retrieval, chain-of-thought reasoning, schema generation, and visualization. The authors evaluate the framework on 100 prompts with five LLM backends, using a custom deterministic Electrical Rule Checking (ERC) engine and an LLM-as-a-Judge meta-evaluator. They report ERC Pass@1 rates of 83–88% across models, but much lower LLM-as-Judge Pass@1 rates of 21–53%. A blind expert review is also reported. The central claim is that CircuitLM produces 'physically realizable' and 'prototyping-ready' schematics.

Significance. If the physical-viability claim were supported, this would be a useful contribution to LLM-aided EDA: the structured CircuitJSON output, retrieval-augmented component grounding, and two-layer evaluation framework address real gaps in prior work, and the public code/data commitment is a strength. The multi-agent decomposition and the attempt at deterministic verification are valuable. However, the evidence presented does not establish physical viability, because the ERC shares the same knowledge base and constraints as the generator, the LLM judge results contradict the reliability claims, and no simulation or hardware testing is performed. The framework may still be of interest as a structured schematic-generation system, but the paper's scope and conclusions need substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III-G, §IV-A, §IV-D] The ERC engine and the generation pipeline share the same curated knowledge base. Stage II retrieval enforces canonical pin labels and component identities (IV-A), Stage III CoT is explicitly prompted to include current-limiting resistors, pull-ups, and similar safety components (III-C), and the ERC then checks exactly those categories (III-G). ERC Pass@1 therefore measures the system's success at conforming to a rule set it was engineered to satisfy, not independent physical viability. The blind expert review does not close this gap: experts were shown the ERC reports and used a predefined error taxonomy, anchoring them to the same rule categories. This is load-bearing for the abstract and conclusion claim of 'physically realizable' schematics.
  2. [§V-A, §V-B, §V-C, Tables II–III, Fig. 8] The paper's own LLM-as-Judge results contradict its reliability claims. ERC Pass@1 is 83–88% (Table II), but LLM-as-Judge Pass@1 is only 21–53% (Table III). Figure 8 shows an ERC-passing circuit missing a gate pull-down and a VIN connection. Given that the authors report κ=0.78 agreement between the LLM judge and human experts, these results directly undermine the statements of 'near-total elimination of fatal errors' and 'safe, electrically correct hardware.' The discrepancy is acknowledged as an 'evaluation gap' but is not reconciled with the conclusion.
  3. [§VII] The manuscript explicitly acknowledges the 'absence of simulator-in-the-loop verification (e.g., automated Wokwi or Proteus co-simulation).' Without SPICE-level simulation, a digital simulator, or physical breadboard testing, the ERC Pass@1 metric cannot support the central claim of 'physically realizable' or 'prototyping-ready' outputs. The ERC checks only a fixed set of topological rules; the LLM judge's own findings show that this misses serious functional errors. Either external validation must be added, or the claims must be scaled back to 'passes the custom ERC rule set.'
  4. [§IV-D, §V-B] The expert validation is not an independent gold standard. The three experts reviewed circuits together with ERC reports and were calibrated on the same error taxonomy used by the ERC. The reported Fleiss' kappa (κ=0.82) therefore measures agreement with the ERC's categories, not whether the circuits are genuinely valid. The review cannot detect design flaws that the ERC itself misses, as demonstrated by Figure 8. This weakens the support for 'professionally viable' hardware.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. §IV-A / §VII] The abstract states code and data are publicly available, while the full text says 'will be made public' and 'open-sourced upon publication.' Please reconcile.
  2. [§V-A, Table II] The text says 'GPT was the only model exhibiting non-zero average fatal errors (µ=0.0±0.2)', but a mean of 0.0 is not non-zero. Also, Table II lists Llama with Fatal 0.1±0.2, contradicting the statement.
  3. [Table I and §VI] The 'zero-shot baseline' injects the full component library into the prompt. This is a strong full-context baseline, not a standard zero-shot setting; please clarify the terminology to avoid confusion.
  4. [Figure 8] The caption identifies the missing pull-down and VIN connection, but it would be clearer to also show the corresponding ERC report or explanation of why the ERC did not flag these issues.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

ERC Pass@1 measures compliance with the same curated KB that drives generation, so the physical-viability claim is partially self-validating.

  1. self definitional [Section III-G, Section IV-A, Section IV-D]
    "The engine evaluates circuits against a curated knowledge base, deterministically categorizing faults by severity... The system strictly enforces logic-level matching (V out > Vin max), detects floating inputs or net contention, and validates component-specific requirements (e.g., PWM mapping) against a curated hardware Knowledge Base (KB). This KB contains constraints for maximum operating voltages, current limits, pin multiplexing, and inductive load requirements. ... This database serves two primary functions: Components List: Providing a finite and authoritative set of components, includin"

    The curated KB is the same source from which the Retrieval Agent obtains canonical pins and the CoT agent is prompted to enforce constraints. An ERC 'Pass' (zero Fatal/Major) is defined as satisfying the KB rules that were already fed into the generator. Therefore the reported 83-88% Pass@1 measures internal conformance to the curated KB, not independent physical viability; calling this 'prototyping-ready' or 'physically realizable' reduces to the system checking its own inputs.

full rationale

The central physical-viability claim is partially circular: generation is grounded in a curated KB (canonical pins, mandatory labels, constraints) and the ERC validates against that same KB, so ERC Pass@1 is a self-consistency score rather than an external test. The paper itself concedes 'ERC cannot guarantee the circuit works' and acknowledges the absence of simulator-in-the-loop verification (Section VII), and its LLM-as-judge results (21-53%) show large error classes the ERC misses. These admissions and the separate LLM judge provide some independent content, preventing a fully circular design. No load-bearing self-citation was found: [9] shares authors but is cited only as related multi-agent reasoning work. Overall the headline reliability claim is over-strong relative to evidence, but the circularity is partial and disclosed.

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

The central claim rests on a closed loop: the same curated knowledge base constrains generation, defines the ERC rules, and limits the benchmark prompts. The similarity threshold is a free parameter, and the evaluation axioms assume that the rule-based and LLM judges capture all meaningful faults.

free parameters (3)
  • Embedding similarity threshold = not stated
    Used in Stage II for retrieval from the vector database; described as 'empirically determined' (Section IV-A). This threshold affects component matching and hence all downstream results, but no value or tuning procedure is given.
  • ERC Pass@1 threshold = zero Fatal and Major errors
    The binary success criterion is a design choice (Section IV-D). It determines the headline pass rates and is not independently justified.
  • Prompt difficulty stratification = Easy/Medium/Adversarial split
    The 100 prompts are hand-curated and stratified by the authors; the criteria for assigning difficulty are subjective and could influence the reported breakdown in Table V.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Topological graph-based rule checking is sufficient to establish circuit safety and functionality.
    Section III-G states that SPICE is 'computationally infeasible and practically irrelevant' and instead uses a custom graph-based ERC. This assumes that all safety-critical faults can be captured by the rule registry, which the paper's own LLM-judge results contradict.
  • domain assumption The curated 70+ component knowledge base is representative of the benchmark prompts and restricts the search space without harming validity.
    Section IV-A describes the KB as the 'foundational taxonomy.' If a requested part is missing, the OOD halt triggers, so the benchmark can only contain prompts the KB supports; this selection bias may inflate success rates.
  • domain assumption LLM-as-a-judge (Claude Sonnet 4.5) is a reliable proxy for human expert evaluation of circuit correctness.
    Section IV-D introduces the meta-evaluator with its own error categories. Although validated against humans on a 25% sample, the judge is still a stochastic LLM and the paper notes only a single evaluator was used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CircuitLM: A Multi-Agent LLM-Aided Design Framework for Generating Circuit Schematics from Natural Language Prompts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CXC4YHSS

@misc{pith2026260104505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CircuitLM: A Multi-Agent LLM-Aided Design Framework for Generating Circuit Schematics from Natural Language Prompts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CXC4YHSS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.04505}
}
abstract

Generating accurate circuit schematics from high-level natural language descriptions remains a persistent challenge in electronic design automation (EDA), as large language models (LLMs) frequently hallucinate components, violate strict physical constraints, and produce non-machine-readable outputs. To address this, we present CircuitLM, a multi-agent pipeline that translates user prompts into structured, visually interpretable $\texttt{CircuitJSON}$ schematics. The framework mitigates hallucination and ensures physical viability by grounding generation in a curated, embedding-powered component knowledge base through five sequential stages: (i) component identification, (ii) canonical pinout retrieval, (iii) chain-of-thought reasoning, (iv) JSON schematic synthesis, and (v) interactive force-directed visualization. We evaluate the system on a dataset of 100 unique circuit-design prompts using five state-of-the-art LLMs. To systematically assess performance, we deploy a rigorous dual-layered evaluation methodology: a deterministic Electrical Rule Checking (ERC) engine categorizes topological faults by strict severity (Critical, Major, Minor, Warning), while an LLM-as-a-judge meta-evaluator identifies complex, context-aware design flaws that bypass standard rule-based checkers. Ultimately, this work demonstrates how targeted retrieval combined with deterministic and semantic verification can bridge natural language to structurally viable, schematic-ready hardware and safe circuit prototyping. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Khandakar227/CircuitLM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.04505 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of a circuit schema generated by CircuitLM from one of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of the CircuitLM framework. B. Stage II: Component Matching (Retrieval Agent) The list of Stage I is passed to the Retrieval Agent. The agent runs an embedding-based similarity search over a local vector knowledge base of canonical components [13], then augments it with a fuzzy lookup using a dictionary of equivalent parts. Results are merged and mapped to records in the component database, yielding a di… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Input output data of component identification agent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Components pin out information is retrieved by using the component’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Workflow of the chain of thought agent, it takes the user’s prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Circuit Schematic of Sign language glove using 5 IMU sensors for 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: LLM-as-Judge evaluation of a CircuitLM-generated schematic for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. DRC-Aid: Design-Rule Correction via Agentic Framework utilizing Inference-Time Large Language Models

    cs.AR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A closed-loop agentic framework using LLM action selection over a rule-engine menu repairs ~92.5% of DRC-violating FreePDK45 layouts to DRC-clean, LVS-equivalent states.

  2. Reasoning4Sciences: Bridging Reasoning Language Models to All Scientific Branches

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Survey of RLM adoption in 28 disciplines reveals maturity disparities via a new assessment framework, with focus on development, evaluation, and public resources.

  3. Reasoning4Sciences: Bridging Reasoning Language Models to All Scientific Branches

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A survey of RLM use in 28 disciplines reveals uneven adoption and introduces a maturity assessment framework showing larger gaps when limited to public resources.

  4. Complexity Horizons of Compressed Models in Analog Circuit Analysis

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Prerequisite graphs map compressed LLM performance boundaries in analog circuit analysis to allow selecting the smallest viable model for a given task complexity.

  5. Reasoning4Sciences: Bridging Reasoning Language Models to All Scientific Branches

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey of reasoning language model adoption across 28 ERC scientific disciplines finds large maturity gaps, especially when only public resources are counted.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    From words to wires: Generating functioning electronic devices from natural language descriptions,

    P. Jansen, “From words to wires: Generating functioning electronic devices from natural language descriptions,”

  2. [2]

    Machine learning in eda: A survey,

    S. Talebzadehet al., “Machine learning in eda: A survey,” ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Verilogeval: Evaluating large language models for verilog code generation,

    S. Thakuret al., “Verilogeval: Evaluating large language models for verilog code generation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05461, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Chip-chat: Challenges and opportu- nities in conversational hardware design,

    J. Blockloveet al., “Chip-chat: Challenges and opportu- nities in conversational hardware design,” inProceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE Workshop on Machine Learning for CAD, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Schemato – an llm for netlist-to-schematic conversion,

    R. Matsuo, S. Uhlich, A. Venkitaraman, A. Bonetti, C.-Y . Hsieh, A. Momeni, L. Mauch, A. Capone, E. Ohbuchi, and L. Servadei, “Schemato – an llm for netlist-to-schematic conversion,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13899

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Eeschematic: Multimodal-llm based ai agent for schematic generation of analog circuit,

    C. Liu and D. Chitnis, “Eeschematic: Multimodal-llm based ai agent for schematic generation of analog circuit,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2510.17002

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Llm4netlist: Llm-enabled step-based netlist generation from natural language description,

    K. Ye, Q. Yang, Z. Lu, H. Yu, T. Cui, R. Bai, and L. Shen, “Llm4netlist: Llm-enabled step-based netlist generation from natural language description,”IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    ReMA: Learning to meta-think for LLMs with multi-agent reinforcement learning,

    Z. Wan, Y . LI, X. Wen, Y . Song, H. Wang, L. Yang, M. Schmidt, J. Wang, W. Zhang, S. Hu, and Y . Wen, “ReMA: Learning to meta-think for LLMs with multi-agent reinforcement learning,” inThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //openreview.net/forum?id=ur295YVtmt

    2025

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Physicseval: Inference- time techniques to improve the reasoning proficiency of large language models on physics problems,

    O. Siddique, J. Alam, M. J. R. Rafy, S. R. Raiyan, H. Mahmud, and M. K. Hasan, “Physicseval: Inference- time techniques to improve the reasoning proficiency of large language models on physics problems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00079, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Metagpt: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework,

    S. Honget al., “Metagpt: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00352, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Menter: A fully-automated multi-agent workflow for end-to- end rf/analog circuits netlist design,

    P.-H. Chen, Y .-S. Lin, W.-C. Lee, T.-Y . Leu, P.-H. Hsu, A. Dissanayake, S. Oh, and C.-S. Chiu, “Menter: A fully-automated multi-agent workflow for end-to- end rf/analog circuits netlist design,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.22990

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A survey of research in large language models for electronic design automation,

    J. Pan, G. Zhou, C.-C. Chang, I. Jacobson, J. Hu, and Y . Chen, “A survey of research in large language models for electronic design automation,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09655

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Retrieval- augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. K ¨uttler, M. Lewis, W. tau Yih, T. Rockt ¨aschel, S. Riedel, and D. Kiela, “Retrieval- augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2005.11401

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    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,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2201.11903

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models,

    D. Zhou, N. Sch ¨arli, L. Hou, J. Wei, N. Scales, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, C. Cui, O. Bousquet, Q. Le, and E. Chi, “Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10625

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Self- consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models,

    X. Wang, J. Wei, D. Schuurmans, Q. Le, E. Chi, S. Narang, A. Chowdhery, and D. Zhou, “Self- consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2203.11171

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Using wokwi simulator to support engi- neering student learning in microcontrollers and sensors,

    K. Asparuhova, S. Daniela, S. Asenov, H. Kanevski, and A. Parushev, “Using wokwi simulator to support engi- neering student learning in microcontrollers and sensors,” 09 2024, pp. 1–4

    2024

  10. [18]

    Sch ¨onfeld and J

    M. Sch ¨onfeld and J. Pfeffer,Fruchterman/Reingold (1991): Graph Drawing by Force-Directed Placement. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2019, pp. 217–220. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-658-21742-6 49

    1991

  11. [19]

    An algorithm for path connections and its applications,

    C. Y . Lee, “An algorithm for path connections and its applications,”IRE Trans. Electron. Comput., vol. 10, pp. 346–365, 1961. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:40700386

    1961

  12. [20]

    Evaluating large language models trained on code,

    M. Chen, J. Tworek, H. Jun, Q. Yuan, H. P. de Oliveira Pinto, J. Kaplan, H. Edwards, Y . Burda, N. Joseph, G. Brockman, A. Ray, R. Puri, G. Krueger, M. Petrov, H. Khlaaf, G. Sastry, P. Mishkin, B. Chan, S. Gray, N. Ryder, M. Pavlov, A. Power, L. Kaiser, M. Bavarian, C. Winter,...

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Program synthesis with large language models,

    J. Austin, A. Odena, M. Nye, M. Bosma, H. Michalewski, D. Dohan, E. Jiang, C. Cai, M. Terry, Q. Le, and C. Sutton, “Program synthesis with large language models,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07732

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Qwen3 technical report,

    A. Yang, A. Li, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Gao, C. Huang, C. Lvet al., “Qwen3 technical report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Qwen3 embedding: Advancing text embedding and reranking through foundation models,

    Y . Zhang, M. Li, D. Long, X. Zhang, H. Lin, B. Yang, P. Xie, A. Yang, D. Liu, J. Lin, F. Huang, and J. Zhou, “Qwen3 embedding: Advancing text embedding and reranking through foundation models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.05176

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Openai gpt-5 system card,

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

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multi- modal models,

    G. Team, R. Anil, S. Borgeaud, J.-B. Alayrac, J. Yu, R. Soricut, J. Schalkwyk, A. M. Dai, A. Hauth, K. Mil- licanet al., “Gemini: a family of highly capable multi- modal models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Deepseek- v3 technical report,

    A. Liu, B. Feng, B. Xue, B. Wang, B. Wu, C. Lu, C. Zhao, C. Deng, C. Zhang, C. Ruanet al., “Deepseek- v3 technical report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    The llama 3 herd of models,

    A. Grattafiori, A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Ka- dian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Vaughanet al., “The llama 3 herd of models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024. APPENDIX How do I connect Sonar sensor with arduino which will be on top of a serv...

    2024 arXiv

  20. [2023]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305. 14874

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.