arXiv subjects

Sahana Srinivasan

Publications and source records attributed to Sahana Srinivasan.

11 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Surveying GenAI-based Automation in Printed Circuit Board Design and Test

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used for applications in the hardware and software domains. It purports to reduce the manual effort involved in the development and testing of complex systems before release. Within the hardware space, most tasks have focused on design automation of integrated circuits, particularly with hardware description languages. However, other types of hardware also exist! In this survey, we instead examine how GenAI has been and is being across the printed circuit board (PCB) design life cycle. This includes everything from supply chains, system specification, circuit design, layout and optimisation, validation and test, and PCB assembly and distribution. Through this lens we present a taxonomy of discovered works, categorising them according to their intent and contributions. This survey also identifies key technical challenges that GenAI faces in this space, such as domain-specific data scarcity and limited support for integration with existing PCB tools. Finally, future research directions are discussed: our survey shows that there are many opportunities remaining when considering how GenAI may be integrated into various tasks in PCB design and test.

cs.AR↗

arXiv2026

PCB-QA: Evaluating LLMs over the First Printed Circuit Board Design Question-Answer Dataset

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated capabilities in electronic design automation (EDA) for integrated circuits. However, their applications in printed circuit board (PCB) design and analysis tasks remain underexplored. In part, this is due to a (1) a lack of text-based PCB datasets to evaluate LLMs and (2) a lack of methodologies for prompting LLMs with different types of PCB design files. To address this gap, our paper proposes PCB-QA: a manually created questionnaire dataset amounting to 480 question-answer pairs for PCBs, derived from 8 different open-source hardware projects of varying complexities. We examine multiple aspects of PCB designs and cover questions about component connections, datasheet examination, and simulation data obtainable via SPICE. Using our dataset as a benchmark, we prompt LLMs with different representations (and combinations) of PCB design files and record observations. This allows us to measure, for the first time, if LLMs can understand schematics and netlists in their "native forms" (i.e. graphical PDFs, KiCAD-format design files) or if textual formats are preferred. Including both commercial and open-weight models, we benchmark 4 state-of-the-art LLMs on our dataset, finding that Gemini 3 Flash Preview can answer questions with an accuracy of 93% using a proposed JSON-based textual format. This demonstrates that text-based PCB design formats can be evaluated by LLMs. Our open-source questionnaire is the first step towards enabling LLM integrations within the PCB design life cycle.

cs.AR↗

arXiv2025

LEME: Open Large Language Models for Ophthalmology with Advanced Reasoning and Clinical Validation

The rising prevalence of eye diseases poses a growing public health burden. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising path to reduce documentation workload and support clinical decision-making. However, few have been tailored for ophthalmology, and most evaluations focus mainly on knowledge-based QA without clinically relevant benchmarks or real-world validation. Here, we present LEME, a suite of open-weight LLMs developed through a two-stage process: (1) instruction tuning on 200,000 samples from clinical guidelines, textbooks, and case reports to enhance reasoning and task-following, and (2) reinforcement learning with ~30,000 preference labels to enhance accuracy and informativeness. LEME was evaluated on five curated zero-shot benchmarks spanning tasks such as patient QA, consultation, and treatment planning. It outperformed all seven baselines (all p < 0.004), exceeding GPT-4o by 3.32% (absolute ROUGE-L gain). It was further evaluated on three downstream tasks using deidentified patient data, reviewed by clinicians. In patient QA, LEME received the highest ratings from attending clinicians in 3 out of 4 criteria, with scores of 4.67 for factuality, 4.77 for specificity, 4.79 for completeness, and 4.88 for safety (1-5 scale). Its completeness score surpassed that of expert-written answers (4.79 vs. 4.56; p = 0.015). In visual acuity extraction, LEME achieved the highest F1, outperforming LLaMA-3 by 14.1% and Eye-LLaMA by 59.0%. In a pilot evaluation on assessment and treatment planning for diabetic retinopathy, AMD, and glaucoma, LEME received scores of 4.36 for factuality, 4.55 for specificity, 4.42 for completeness, and 4.36 for safety, approaching attending-level performance. All models, data, and code will be released to support further development and clinical translation, laying the groundwork for improved efficiency and patient care

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Is an Ultra Large Natural Image-Based Foundation Model Superior to a Retina-Specific Model for Detecting Ocular and Systemic Diseases?

The advent of foundation models (FMs) is transforming medical domain. In ophthalmology, RETFound, a retina-specific FM pre-trained sequentially on 1.4 million natural images and 1.6 million retinal images, has demonstrated high adaptability across clinical applications. Conversely, DINOv2, a general-purpose vision FM pre-trained on 142 million natural images, has shown promise in non-medical domains. However, its applicability to clinical tasks remains underexplored. To address this, we conducted head-to-head evaluations by fine-tuning RETFound and three DINOv2 models (large, base, small) for ocular disease detection and systemic disease prediction tasks, across eight standardized open-source ocular datasets, as well as the Moorfields AlzEye and the UK Biobank datasets. DINOv2-large model outperformed RETFound in detecting diabetic retinopathy (AUROC=0.850-0.952 vs 0.823-0.944, across three datasets, all P<=0.007) and multi-class eye diseases (AUROC=0.892 vs. 0.846, P<0.001). In glaucoma, DINOv2-base model outperformed RETFound (AUROC=0.958 vs 0.940, P<0.001). Conversely, RETFound achieved superior performance over all DINOv2 models in predicting heart failure, myocardial infarction, and ischaemic stroke (AUROC=0.732-0.796 vs 0.663-0.771, all P<0.001). These trends persisted even with 10% of the fine-tuning data. These findings showcase the distinct scenarios where general-purpose and domain-specific FMs excel, highlighting the importance of aligning FM selection with task-specific requirements to optimise clinical performance.

eess.IV↗

arXiv2025

Generalist versus Specialist Vision Foundation Models for Ocular Disease and Oculomics

Medical foundation models, pre-trained with large-scale clinical data, demonstrate strong performance in diverse clinically relevant applications. RETFound, trained on nearly one million retinal images, exemplifies this approach in applications with retinal images. However, the emergence of increasingly powerful and multifold larger generalist foundation models such as DINOv2 and DINOv3 raises the question of whether domain-specific pre-training remains essential, and if so, what gap persists. To investigate this, we systematically evaluated the adaptability of DINOv2 and DINOv3 in retinal image applications, compared to two specialist RETFound models, RETFound-MAE and RETFound-DINOv2. We assessed performance on ocular disease detection and systemic disease prediction using two adaptation strategies: fine-tuning and linear probing. Data efficiency and adaptation efficiency were further analysed to characterise trade-offs between predictive performance and computational cost. Our results show that although scaling generalist models yields strong adaptability across diverse tasks, RETFound-DINOv2 consistently outperforms these generalist foundation models in ocular-disease detection and oculomics tasks, demonstrating stronger generalisability and data efficiency. These findings suggest that specialist retinal foundation models remain the most effective choice for clinical applications, while the narrowing gap with generalist foundation models suggests that continued data and model scaling can deliver domain-relevant gains and position them as strong foundations for future medical foundation models.

eess.IV↗

arXiv2025

FusionFM: Fusing Eye-specific Foundational Models for Optimized Ophthalmic Diagnosis

Foundation models (FMs) have shown great promise in medical image analysis by improving generalization across diverse downstream tasks. In ophthalmology, several FMs have recently emerged, but there is still no clear answer to fundamental questions: Which FM performs the best? Are they equally good across different tasks? What if we combine all FMs together? To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically evaluate both single and fused ophthalmic FMs. To address these questions, we propose FusionFM, a comprehensive evaluation suite, along with two fusion approaches to integrate different ophthalmic FMs. Our framework covers both ophthalmic disease detection (glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, and age-related macular degeneration) and systemic disease prediction (diabetes and hypertension) based on retinal imaging. We benchmarked four state-of-the-art FMs (RETFound, VisionFM, RetiZero, and DINORET) using standardized datasets from multiple countries and evaluated their performance using AUC and F1 metrics. Our results show that DINORET and RetiZero achieve superior performance in both ophthalmic and systemic disease tasks, with RetiZero exhibiting stronger generalization on external datasets. Regarding fusion strategies, the Gating-based approach provides modest improvements in predicting glaucoma, AMD, and hypertension. Despite these advances, predicting systemic diseases, especially hypertension in external cohort remains challenging. These findings provide an evidence-based evaluation of ophthalmic FMs, highlight the benefits of model fusion, and point to strategies for enhancing their clinical applicability.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

BEnchmarking LLMs for Ophthalmology (BELO) for Ophthalmological Knowledge and Reasoning

Current benchmarks evaluating large language models (LLMs) in ophthalmology are limited in scope and disproportionately prioritise accuracy. We introduce BELO (BEnchmarking LLMs for Ophthalmology), a standardized and comprehensive evaluation benchmark developed through multiple rounds of expert checking by 13 ophthalmologists. BELO assesses ophthalmology-related clinical accuracy and reasoning quality. Using keyword matching and a fine-tuned PubMedBERT model, we curated ophthalmology-specific multiple-choice-questions (MCQs) from diverse medical datasets (BCSC, MedMCQA, MedQA, BioASQ, and PubMedQA). The dataset underwent multiple rounds of expert checking. Duplicate and substandard questions were systematically removed. Ten ophthalmologists refined the explanations of each MCQ's correct answer. This was further adjudicated by three senior ophthalmologists. To illustrate BELO's utility, we evaluated six LLMs (OpenAI o1, o3-mini, GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, Llama-3-8B, and Gemini 1.5 Pro) using accuracy, macro-F1, and five text-generation metrics (ROUGE-L, BERTScore, BARTScore, METEOR, and AlignScore). In a further evaluation involving human experts, two ophthalmologists qualitatively reviewed 50 randomly selected outputs for accuracy, comprehensiveness, and completeness. BELO consists of 900 high-quality, expert-reviewed questions aggregated from five sources: BCSC (260), BioASQ (10), MedMCQA (572), MedQA (40), and PubMedQA (18). A public leaderboard has been established to promote transparent evaluation and reporting. Importantly, the BELO dataset will remain a hold-out, evaluation-only benchmark to ensure fair and reproducible comparisons of future models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Benchmarking Next-Generation Reasoning-Focused Large Language Models in Ophthalmology: A Head-to-Head Evaluation on 5,888 Items

Recent advances in reasoning-focused large language models (LLMs) mark a shift from general LLMs toward models designed for complex decision-making, a crucial aspect in medicine. However, their performance in specialized domains like ophthalmology remains underexplored. This study comprehensively evaluated and compared the accuracy and reasoning capabilities of four newly developed reasoning-focused LLMs, namely DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI o1, o3-mini, and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Thinking. Each model was assessed using 5,888 multiple-choice ophthalmology exam questions from the MedMCQA dataset in zero-shot setting. Quantitative evaluation included accuracy, Macro-F1, and five text-generation metrics (ROUGE-L, METEOR, BERTScore, BARTScore, and AlignScore), computed against ground-truth reasonings. Average inference time was recorded for a subset of 100 randomly selected questions. Additionally, two board-certified ophthalmologists qualitatively assessed clarity, completeness, and reasoning structure of responses to differential diagnosis questions.O1 (0.902) and DeepSeek-R1 (0.888) achieved the highest accuracy, with o1 also leading in Macro-F1 (0.900). The performance of models across the text-generation metrics varied: O3-mini excelled in ROUGE-L (0.151), o1 in METEOR (0.232), DeepSeek-R1 and o3-mini tied for BERTScore (0.673), DeepSeek-R1 (-4.105) and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Thinking (-4.127) performed best in BARTScore, while o3-mini (0.181) and o1 (0.176) led AlignScore. Inference time across the models varied, with DeepSeek-R1 being slowest (40.4 seconds) and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Thinking fastest (6.7 seconds). Qualitative evaluation revealed that DeepSeek-R1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Thinking tended to provide detailed and comprehensive intermediate reasoning, whereas o1 and o3-mini displayed concise and summarized justifications.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Are Traditional Deep Learning Model Approaches as Effective as a Retinal-Specific Foundation Model for Ocular and Systemic Disease Detection?

Background: RETFound, a self-supervised, retina-specific foundation model (FM), showed potential in downstream applications. However, its comparative performance with traditional deep learning (DL) models remains incompletely understood. This study aimed to evaluate RETFound against three ImageNet-pretrained supervised DL models (ResNet50, ViT-base, SwinV2) in detecting ocular and systemic diseases. Methods: We fine-tuned/trained RETFound and three DL models on full datasets, 50%, 20%, and fixed sample sizes (400, 200, 100 images, with half comprising disease cases; for each DR severity class, 100 and 50 cases were used. Fine-tuned models were tested internally using the SEED (53,090 images) and APTOS-2019 (3,672 images) datasets and externally validated on population-based (BES, CIEMS, SP2, UKBB) and open-source datasets (ODIR-5k, PAPILA, GAMMA, IDRiD, MESSIDOR-2). Model performance was compared using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Z-tests with Bonferroni correction (P<0.05/3). Interpretation: Traditional DL models are mostly comparable to RETFound for ocular disease detection with large datasets. However, RETFound is superior in systemic disease detection with smaller datasets. These findings offer valuable insights into the respective merits and limitation of traditional models and FMs.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Can OpenAI o1 Reason Well in Ophthalmology? A 6,990-Question Head-to-Head Evaluation Study

Question: What is the performance and reasoning ability of OpenAI o1 compared to other large language models in addressing ophthalmology-specific questions? Findings: This study evaluated OpenAI o1 and five LLMs using 6,990 ophthalmological questions from MedMCQA. O1 achieved the highest accuracy (0.88) and macro-F1 score but ranked third in reasoning capabilities based on text-generation metrics. Across subtopics, o1 ranked first in ``Lens'' and ``Glaucoma'' but second to GPT-4o in ``Corneal and External Diseases'', ``Vitreous and Retina'' and ``Oculoplastic and Orbital Diseases''. Subgroup analyses showed o1 performed better on queries with longer ground truth explanations. Meaning: O1's reasoning enhancements may not fully extend to ophthalmology, underscoring the need for domain-specific refinements to optimize performance in specialized fields like ophthalmology.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2022

COVID-19 Monitoring System using Social Distancing and Face Mask Detection on Surveillance video datasets

In the current times, the fear and danger of COVID-19 virus still stands large. Manual monitoring of social distancing norms is impractical with a large population moving about and with insufficient task force and resources to administer them. There is a need for a lightweight, robust and 24X7 video-monitoring system that automates this process. This paper proposes a comprehensive and effective solution to perform person detection, social distancing violation detection, face detection and face mask classification using object detection, clustering and Convolution Neural Network (CNN) based binary classifier. For this, YOLOv3, Density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN), Dual Shot Face Detector (DSFD) and MobileNetV2 based binary classifier have been employed on surveillance video datasets. This paper also provides a comparative study of different face detection and face mask classification models. Finally, a video dataset labelling method is proposed along with the labelled video dataset to compensate for the lack of dataset in the community and is used for evaluation of the system. The system performance is evaluated in terms of accuracy, F1 score as well as the prediction time, which has to be low for practical applicability. The system performs with an accuracy of 91.2% and F1 score of 90.79% on the labelled video dataset and has an average prediction time of 7.12 seconds for 78 frames of a video.

cs.CV↗