Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Linjian Yang

Publications and source records attributed to Linjian Yang.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

BoardSafety: AI-Ready Data from Manufacturer Documentation for Development-Board Safety

The development of large language models (LLMs) are capable to assist with hardware experiments. In this scenario, this raises a practical question: Can LLMs determine whether a proposed operation is safe for a specific development board? Documented operating limits and safety requirements are board-specific, even across products from the same manufacturer. This variation makes board-specific safety judgments by an LLM difficult to evaluate. To address this problem, we introduce the BoardSafety Benchmark. The benchmark is built from vendor datasheets and hardware guides. For data transformation, these documents are converted into a board-specific safety rule base and are then used to create labeled operating scenarios. Each data item pairs a board and a proposed operation to an applicable safety rule with ground-truth label, indicating the level of safety. The categorized level for each operation includes safe, unsafe, or insufficient-info. In addition, the benchmark covers diverse operations, board-specific cases, boundary conditions, and missing-information cases. We evaluate a series of models by varying their access to board-specific rules and the use of structured-rationale prompting. Our results demonstrate that providing the safety rules generally improves accuracy, whereas structured-rationale prompting produces gains that vary across models and rule-access conditions. Overall, the evaluated models cannot yet reliably determine whether an operation is safe, which implies that critical exploration is required for this field.

cs.AI↗

ElecSafety: Diagnosing Large Language Model Safety Judgments for Microcontroller Boards

Large language models (LLMs) progressively support embedded hardware development, but a plausible recommendation may pose safety risks when acting on the physical hardware. Because electrical safety can be different between every microcontroller board, a practical question is raised: can LLMs have the capability to make the right decision on whether a proposed user operation is safe for the board? Although benchmarks for embedded development exist, they primarily target code generation and hardware design tasks. This highlights the lack of tested board-specific judgment regarding electrical safety. To address this gap, we introduce the ElecSafety benchmark to evaluate whether an LLM can respond with the correct label and derive that label from the proper manufacturer constraints and rules. We extract these constraints from vendor datasheets and hardware manuals. Each scenario is defined by a decisive condition and a gold label (safe, hazardous, or cannot determine) before translating the scenario into natural language. We categorize the scenarios into violation and compliant cases, board-swap, near-boundary, and missing-information. We then evaluated the scenario on six open-weight LLMs under various conditions of rule access and token limitations. The finding shows board rules can improve accuracy, whereas limiting the token has a smaller impact. Even the best configuration remains unreliable on near-boundary and missing-information scenarios, and a correct label often rests on the inaccurate constraints.

cs.AR↗