Analog layout remains largely manual and hard to automate. Generator frameworks such as gLayout express layouts as programs, producing layouts from parameterized, design-rule-aware generators; however, writing such generators still takes expert effort. Large language models (LLMs) could now write generator code, and frontier models can even draw layout geometry from design intent. This raises a practical question: if a model can draw the layout itself, what does a generator framework still contribute, and is applying these models to a generator framework better than having them draw a layout from scratch? Through controlled experiments on gLayout in SKY130, we find that the main obstacle to drawing a layout directly is its time and token cost, and that the main advantage of a model building on a generator framework is reusability. Its verified primitives keep each model edit small enough to check, and its parameters allow a single edit to be evaluated across an entire family of layouts. Accordingly, a model is most effective when it develops the layout from the generator source of the family that the design intent belongs to, and tests each edit on the family members most likely to fail, so that one verified change improves every layout the generator produces. The results of these family tests can then serve as supervision for a local model, which learns edits that hold across the family at a fraction of the inference cost.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of the family-level editing loop.
Interface
Location of design knowledge
Policy action
Raw GDS geometry [ 19 ]
Program-built polygons, layers, labels and nets
Edit geometry construction and net routing
Primitive Python API [ 6 ]
Device and via construction with port interfaces
Place primitive instances and connect terminals
gLayout [ 5 , 6 ]
MappedPDK, hierarchical device and block generators
Edit generator source or compose allowlisted blocks
BAG/BAG2/BAG3++ [ 1 ]
Procedural schematic and layout generators, test scripts
TABLE I: Where layout frameworks keep their knowledge and what a policy can change.
Fig. 2: Action level and evaluation fidelity shape the search. (a) Outcome of every Claude Opus 5.5 episode by action level (G0 geometry, G1 primitives, G2 generator source) and by whether the needed cell could be reused or had to be built from primitives. (b) Oracle pools of the four amplifiers (5T: five-transistor, FVF: flipped voltage follower) with the Spearman correlation between area and bandwidth. (c) Candidates verified within the time limit against full evaluations on a 5T pool whose layouts all pass, under four screens: area, adaptive geometric rule, extracted RC product and calibrated interval F3.
Fig. 3: Editing searches, their evidence, the local models and their cost. (a) Outcome of every Claude Opus 5.5 search by test rule (A anchor only, R random, B boundary, C risk; C-dist and C-margin keep one term of C) and parameter baseline (P policy, P random). (b) Anchor improvement against visible configurations passing the final patch. (c) The stacked switch before and after a one-line change. (d) Hidden configurations kept by the local models under point and family supervision, SFT and DPO, three seeds. (e) Median physical CPU per search episode.
GPT
Claude
Rule
n
Impr.
Gain
Cov.
Regr.
n
Impr.
Gain
Cov.
Regr.
A anchor only
120
37
39
58
12
72
36
62
61
11
R random
120
25
48
66
7
72
27
48
69
6
B boundary
120
23
48
64
8
72
32
48
67
7
C risk
120
15
48
74
3
72
29
45
79
2
C+F3
10
3
119
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
TABLE II: Editing searches by test rule and policy: searches ( n ), improving patches, their median gain (%), and hidden coverage and regression (%).
Language-model agents can repair analog layouts when sign-off tools check every edit, but which model should plan a repair, which should edit it, and at what cost remain open questions. In our tool-grounded repair agent, models only choose bounded layout operators; sign-off tools rerun each task's contract checks after every edit, so failing layouts are never accepted. On layout-versus-schematic (LVS), design-rule checking (DRC), and post-layout repairs of three designs (a production high-voltage digital-to-analog converter (DAC), a 5-V oscillator, and a SKY130 operational transconductance amplifier (OTA)) with six tier-matched models from two vendors, 182 blind runs show that cheap models execute plans but rarely succeed alone (the cheapest model: 1 of 11 runs alone, 16 of 17 under a flagship planner; p < 0.001), cheap planners fail more often, and no fixed assignment is cheapest on every task. We propose a learning controller that selects models for each role and the escalation order from the first tool evaluation and updates Bayesian estimates after every attempt. With rules and initial estimates frozen before testing, the controller fixed 7 of 8 episodes on four sealed held-out tasks, matching the OpenAI flagship alone, at 15-40% of the flagship's spend per fix on three tasks but 8% higher spend overall. The cheapest mid-tier model alone fixed 6 of 8 at the lowest overall spend per fix but missed the hardest task. All 32 extracted DAC repairs match the human-guided LVS repair's integral nonlinearity (INL) within 0.005 least significant bits (LSB) at every code.
Xilai Dai, Saeed Mohammadi
Elmore Family School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
Analog IC layout design remains a labor-intensive iterative process dominated by simulation-driven refinement. Although end-to-end layout generators accelerate initial placement and routing, they still require experts to manually tune layout optimization parameters with repeated post-layout simulations for stringent design specifications. While Bayesian Optimization (BO) is widely adopted for parameter tuning in analog IC design, at the layout level it typically requires hundreds to thousands of evaluations, each involving costly parasitic extraction and post-layout simulation, which makes it impractical. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in improving the sample efficiency of such simulation-driven tuning. However, their restricted access to geometric layout context and design-specific heuristics limits their ability to manipulate the layout optimization process. In this paper, we propose a simulation-aware LLM multi-agent framework that performs in-context policy improvement (ICPI) by iteratively updating layout optimization parameters exposed by an analog layout generator through an act-observe-reflect loop on compact structured layout representations. Experiments on real-world analog circuits show that, with only tens of post-layout simulations, our approach improves post-layout performance over the generator's built-in heuristics and BO-based tuning method.
Bingyang Liu, Ziming Wei, Xiaohan Gao +1
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA
Traditional design of analog circuits heavily relies on manual interventions across topology, sizing, and layout, with prior automation addressing stages in isolation. In this work, we propose PANDA, an LLM-enhanced framework that bridges high-level design intent to final layout by actively managing cross-stage dependencies through guided topology synthesis, substructure-aware sizing, and constraint-driven layout generation. This shifts automation from algorithm-centric execution to intent-centric co-design, reducing turnaround time from days or weeks to hours while improving design performance.
Haoyi Zhang, Weijian Fan, Xiaohan Gao +3
School of Integrated Circuits, Peking University, Beijing, China · Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Integrated Circuits, Beijing, China · Institute of Electronic Design Automation, Peking University, Wuxi, China