Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper presents a human-AI interaction study evaluating the performance of GPT, Gemini, and Claude on 10 undergraduate-level digital logic circuit problems. Twenty-four students compared the models pairwise, judging preference, correctness, consistency, verbosity, and confidence, while an independent judge assessed correctness against official solutions. The study reveals a significant gap between perceived helpfulness and actual correctness, with LLMs struggling on sequentially demanding problems and often defaulting to textbook templates, leading to potential reinforcement of misconceptions.
Despite producing confident and well-structured explanations, popular LLMs consistently fail to solve undergraduate-level digital logic problems, highlighting a critical need for verification scaffolds in educational applications.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used by undergraduate students as on-demand tutors, yet their reliability on circuit- and diagram-based digital logic problems remains unclear. We present a human- AI study evaluating three widely used LLMs (GPT, Gemini, and Claude) on 10 undergraduate-level digital logic questions spanning non-standard counters, JK-based state transitions, timing diagrams, frequency division, and finite-state machines. Twenty-four students performed pairwise model comparisons, providing per-question judgments on (i) preferred model, (ii) perceived correctness, (iii) consistency, (iv) verbosity, and (v) confidence, along with global ratings of overall model quality, satisfaction across multiple dimensions (e.g., accuracy and clarity), and perceived mental effort required to verify answers. To benchmark technical validity, we applied an independent judge-based evaluation against official solutions for all ten questions, using strict correctness criteria. Results reveal a consistent gap between perceived helpfulness and formal correctness: for the most sequentially demanding problems (Q1- Q7), none of the evaluated LLMs matched the official answers, despite producing confident, well-structured explanations that students often rated favorably. Error analysis indicates that models frequently default to canonical textbook templates (e.g., standard ripple counters) and struggle to translate circuit structure into exact state evolution and timing behavior. These findings suggest that, without verification scaffolds, LLMs may be unreliable for core digital logic topics and can inadvertently reinforce misconceptions in undergraduate instruction.
