arXiv AI September 24, 2026 By Ali Hedayati Pirouzan

Validation and Simulation Catch Different Errors: Four Levels of Evaluation for LLM-Generated Circuits

The paper introduces four distinct evaluation levels—schema validity, topological validity, backend executability, and component‑set agreement—to assess large language model‑generated electrical circuits. Using a 150‑circuit trilingual benchmark and a typed circuit interchange pipeline, the authors show that each level captures errors missed by the others, with significant discrepancies observed between validator rejections and ngspice execution outcomes. A repair study further demonstrates that targeted model adjustments can markedly improve topological validity while having mixed effects on executability and component agreement.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Hugging Face Trending Papers

Sep 21

Validation and Simulation Catch Different Errors: Four Levels of Evaluation for LLM-Generated Circuits

Simulation success is not equivalent to structural correctness for LLM-generated circuits. We define and measure four evaluation levels -- schema validity, topological validity, backend executability,...

llms benchmarks

arXiv AI

3d ago

Hard-Gate Candidacy in a Deployed Validator Suite

The paper evaluates hard‑gate candidacy for validators in a deployed generative‑agent system by measuring how well each validator’s firing separates successful from failed builds. Across 13 validators and thousands of builds, only a few checks show statistically significant separation, while many fail to distinguish or never fire. The study highlights that skipped checks are recorded as passes, limiting detectable failure rates and underscoring the need for clearer evaluation records.

By Xin Xu

agents

arXiv AI

Jul 9

Specification Grounding Drives Test Effectiveness for LLM Code

arXiv:2607. 06636v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models frequently generate code that appears correct on typical inputs yet fails on edge cases, invalid inputs, and other specification-defined corner conditions.

By Amin Haeri, Mahdi Ghelichi

llms benchmarks

arXiv Machine Learning

Sep 10

Broken on Arrival: Silently Defective LLM Artifacts in Public Model Registries and How to Catch Them

arXiv:2609.05881v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Developers increasingly run large language models locally by pulling quantized GGUF artifacts from public registries, yet nothing in the distribution...

By Aditi Patodiya

llms efficiency

arXiv AI

Aug 3

Validation Evidence in LLM Repair Agents: How Much of What Passes Actually Tests the Bug?

arXiv:2607. 28871v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a repair agent runs a test and sees it pass, the result is treated as evidence about the reported defect.

By Xiaonan Xu, Wenjing Wu

llms agents

arXiv AI

Jul 15

Form, Not Content? A Preregistered, Placebo-Controlled Evaluation of Learned Error-Conditioned Self-Repair Through Prompts and Weights in Frozen Small Code Models

arXiv:2607. 12962v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frozen small code LLMs are deployed locally, yet the information guiding a retry after a failed attempt is still measured without placebo controls in the self-repair literature.

By Mehmet Iscan

llms reinforcement-learning

One email a morning, machine-written

Related stories

Validation and Simulation Catch Different Errors: Four Levels of Evaluation for LLM-Generated Circuits

Hard-Gate Candidacy in a Deployed Validator Suite

Specification Grounding Drives Test Effectiveness for LLM Code

Broken on Arrival: Silently Defective LLM Artifacts in Public Model Registries and How to Catch Them

Validation Evidence in LLM Repair Agents: How Much of What Passes Actually Tests the Bug?

Form, Not Content? A Preregistered, Placebo-Controlled Evaluation of Learned Error-Conditioned Self-Repair Through Prompts and Weights in Frozen Small Code Models