arxiv: 2605.13501 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 💻 cs.AR · cs.LG

Recognition: unknown

Reward-Weighted On-Policy Distillation with an Open Property-Equivalence Verifier for NL-to-SVA Generation

Qingyun Zou , Yingze Li , Tianen Liu , Bingsheng He , Weng-Fai Wong

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 18:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AR cs.LG

keywords NL-to-SVA generationSystemVerilog AssertionsLLM distillationproperty equivalenceon-policy learningreward-weighted trainingformal verification

0 comments

The pith

Reward-weighted on-policy distillation using an open property-equivalence checker lets a 7B model set new state-of-the-art results on natural-language to SystemVerilog assertion generation.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Standard supervised fine-tuning for NL-to-SVA generation optimizes token mimicry and causes models to collapse onto a few implication templates for bounded-delay and liveness properties. Reward-Weighted On-Policy Distillation samples student outputs, scores them for property equivalence with an open SymbiYosys+Z3 checker, and applies a weighted forward-KL loss from a frozen 14B teacher only on verifier-passable rollouts. This keeps token-level supervision dense while anchoring both selection and loss weight to actual behavioral correctness. The resulting 7B student outperforms prior specialized models and 671B general-purpose baselines on NL2SVA-Human and NL2SVA-Machine across pass@1, pass@5, and pass@10.

Core claim

Reward-Weighted On-Policy Distillation (RWOPD) samples student rollouts, scores them with an open SymbiYosys+Z3 Property-Equivalence Checker, and applies a verifier-reward-weighted forward-KL gradient from a frozen 14B teacher on verifier-passable rollouts, distilling CodeV-SVA-14B into a Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct student that sets a new state of the art on NL2SVA benchmarks.

What carries the argument

Reward-Weighted On-Policy Distillation (RWOPD) with Property-Equivalence Checker (PEC), which scores on-policy rollouts for property equivalence and weights the distillation loss accordingly.

If this is right

The 7B distilled student achieves higher pass rates than both specialized prior models and much larger general-purpose models on human-written and machine-generated NL-to-SVA tasks.
Dense token-level supervision is retained while the loss is grounded only in property-equivalent behaviors rather than surface mimicry.
Open verifiers can serve as reliable reward sources for on-policy distillation in formal specification tasks.
Smaller models become practical for high-accuracy SVA generation without relying on template collapse for complex timing properties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same verifier-weighted on-policy loop could be applied to other formal-language generation problems such as protocol or HDL specification.
Tighter integration of the checker inside the sampling loop might further reduce the number of rollouts needed per training step.
The approach suggests a path to shrinking the model size required for reliable hardware-verification assistance across multiple description languages.

Load-bearing premise

The open SymbiYosys+Z3 checker reliably labels property-equivalent SVA specifications without systematic false positives or negatives that would distort the reward-weighted loss.

What would settle it

A collection of SVA properties on which the checker reports equivalence but an independent formal tool or exhaustive manual review shows behavioral mismatch would eliminate the claimed performance gains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13501 by Bingsheng He, Qingyun Zou, Tianen Liu, Weng-Fai Wong, Yingze Li.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Reward differentiation on a 50-SVA mutation pool. C1 C2 C3 0 50 100 92.6 75.5 35.4 92.6 83.0 46.9 pass@1 (%) 14B teacher RWOPD (ours) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Post-training signal ablation (left) and 200-step held-out PEC trajectories on NL2SVA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

LLM-based generation of SystemVerilog Assertions (SVA) is often reported as nearing saturation, with the strongest specialized model reaching ${\sim}76\%$ accuracy on NL2SVA-Human. We show that this aggregate hides a temporal gap: models that appear strong overall still collapse to a few implication templates on bounded-delay and liveness specifications. The core issue is that the dominant recipe, supervised fine-tuning on NL/SVA pairs, optimizes token-level mimicry rather than the \emph{property equivalence} that defines SVA correctness. We introduce \emph{Reward-Weighted On-Policy Distillation} (RWOPD), an on-policy distillation method that samples student rollouts, scores them with an open SymbiYosys+Z3 Property-Equivalence Checker (PEC), and applies a verifier-reward-weighted forward-KL gradient from a frozen 14B teacher on verifier-passable rollouts. This keeps the supervision dense at every response token while grounding both selection and loss weight in property-equivalent behavior. RWOPD distills CodeV-SVA-14B into a Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct student that sets a new state of the art on NL2SVA-Human and NL2SVA-Machine across pass@1, pass@5, and pass@10, surpassing both specialized prior SOTA models and 671B general-purpose baselines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

RWOPD ties on-policy distillation to an external SymbiYosys+Z3 checker to push past template collapse in NL-to-SVA, but the lack of checker validation metrics leaves the main claim under-supported.

read the letter

The main point is that this paper gives a concrete recipe for using an open property-equivalence checker to weight on-policy rollouts during distillation from a 14B teacher into a 7B student, which directly targets the collapse to implication templates on bounded-delay and liveness properties that standard SFT misses. The RWOPD loop samples from the student, scores each rollout with SymbiYosys+Z3 for equivalence to the reference property, and then applies a reward-scaled forward KL loss only on the passing cases. This keeps token-level supervision dense while making both selection and weighting depend on verified behavior rather than surface mimicry. That combination is not in the prior SFT or distillation work they cite, and it is a reasonable response to the temporal gap they diagnose in the 76% aggregate numbers. Using an independent open tool also sidesteps circularity in the reward signal. The approach is aimed squarely at the hardware verification bottleneck where assertion writing still dominates design cost. A reader working on LLM code generation for formal specs or on verifier-in-the-loop training would see a usable method here. The soft spot is that the whole claim rests on the checker returning reliable binary rewards without systematic errors on the exact property classes where prior models fail. The abstract states the tool is open but gives no precision, recall, or human-agreement numbers, and no ablation on what happens if checker error rate rises. If those checks are missing from the full experiments, the weighted gradient could reinforce the same non-equivalent outputs the paper identifies as the problem. The SOTA claim across pass@1/5/10 on both NL2SVA-Human and Machine is stated without the actual deltas or baseline tables visible in the summary, so the size of the lift over the 671B general models is hard to judge. Still, the core idea is grounded enough and the problem is real enough that the paper should go to referees rather than desk reject; they can require the missing checker validation and full result tables.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Reward-Weighted On-Policy Distillation (RWOPD) for NL-to-SVA generation. It samples rollouts from a student model (Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct), scores them with an open SymbiYosys+Z3 Property-Equivalence Checker (PEC), and applies a verifier-reward-weighted forward-KL loss from a frozen CodeV-SVA-14B teacher only on PEC-passable rollouts. The central claim is that this yields a new SOTA on NL2SVA-Human and NL2SVA-Machine across pass@1/5/10, outperforming prior specialized models and 671B baselines by addressing collapse on bounded-delay and liveness properties.

Significance. If the PEC is shown to be reliable, RWOPD provides a concrete mechanism for verifier-grounded distillation that keeps dense token-level supervision while tying selection and weighting to property equivalence rather than surface mimicry. This could generalize to other formal-specification tasks where token-level SFT fails on temporal or liveness constraints.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (Results): the claim of new SOTA is stated without any numerical accuracy values, ablation tables, or error analysis on the NL2SVA benchmarks. This makes it impossible to quantify the improvement or isolate the contribution of the reward weighting versus the base student model.
[§3] §3 (RWOPD method): no precision, recall, or human-agreement numbers are supplied for the SymbiYosys+Z3 PEC on the target property classes (bounded-delay, liveness). Because the binary reward directly filters rollouts and scales the forward-KL term, uncharacterized false-positive rates on the very templates where prior models collapse would systematically reinforce non-equivalent SVA and undermine the central claim.

minor comments (2)

[§3] Notation for the reward-weighted loss (Eq. in §3) could be expanded to show explicitly how the indicator 1{PEC=pass} multiplies the per-token KL term.
[§4] Figure captions and table headers should state the exact pass@k definitions and the number of samples used for each metric.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We agree that quantitative details and verifier characterization are essential for substantiating the SOTA claims and method reliability. We will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested numbers, tables, and metrics.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (Results): the claim of new SOTA is stated without any numerical accuracy values, ablation tables, or error analysis on the NL2SVA benchmarks. This makes it impossible to quantify the improvement or isolate the contribution of the reward weighting versus the base student model.

Authors: We agree that specific numerical values, ablations, and error analysis were not sufficiently highlighted in the abstract and §4. In the revised manuscript we will add the exact pass@1/5/10 accuracies on NL2SVA-Human and NL2SVA-Machine for the 7B RWOPD model versus all baselines (including the 76% prior SOTA and 671B models), include ablation tables isolating the reward-weighting term from the base student, and provide error analysis focused on bounded-delay and liveness failure modes. revision: yes
Referee: [§3] §3 (RWOPD method): no precision, recall, or human-agreement numbers are supplied for the SymbiYosys+Z3 PEC on the target property classes (bounded-delay, liveness). Because the binary reward directly filters rollouts and scales the forward-KL term, uncharacterized false-positive rates on the very templates where prior models collapse would systematically reinforce non-equivalent SVA and undermine the central claim.

Authors: We acknowledge that precision, recall, and human-agreement figures for the PEC are missing from §3. The revised version will include a dedicated evaluation subsection (or appendix) reporting these metrics on held-out bounded-delay and liveness properties, together with measured false-positive rates. While the underlying SymbiYosys+Z3 checker is a formal tool whose soundness limits false positives, we will supply the requested empirical characterization to address the concern directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; external verifier grounds reward

full rationale

The RWOPD derivation samples student rollouts and weights the forward-KL term using scores from the independent open SymbiYosys+Z3 Property-Equivalence Checker. This external binary signal (property-equivalent vs. not) is not defined inside the training loop or by any self-citation chain, nor does any equation reduce the loss to a fitted parameter renamed as prediction. Results are reported on held-out NL2SVA-Human and NL2SVA-Machine benchmarks with standard pass@k, keeping the central claim externally falsifiable rather than tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method rests on the assumption that the external checker provides an accurate and unbiased signal of property equivalence; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract description.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The SymbiYosys+Z3 Property-Equivalence Checker correctly identifies whether a generated SVA is logically equivalent to a reference property.
This assumption supplies the reward signal that selects and weights the distillation targets.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5577 in / 1349 out tokens · 30379 ms · 2026-05-14T18:28:07.051467+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

[1]

On-policy distillation of language models: Learning from self-generated mistakes

Rishabh Agarwal et al. On-policy distillation of language models: Learning from self-generated mistakes. InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

work page 2024
[2]

A general theoretical paradigm to understand learning from human preferences

Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, Daniel Guo, Bilal Piot, Remi Munos, Mark Rowland, Michal Valko, and Daniele Calandriello. A general theoretical paradigm to understand learning from human preferences. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), 2024

work page 2024
[3]

Curriculum learning

Yoshua Bengio, Jérôme Louradour, Ronan Collobert, and Jason Weston. Curriculum learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 41–48, 2009

work page 2009
[4]

Symbolic model checking without BDDs

Armin Biere, Alessandro Cimatti, Edmund Clarke, and Yunshan Zhu. Symbolic model checking without BDDs. InProceedings of the International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), pages 193–207, 1999

work page 1999
[5]

Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code

Mark Chen et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[6]

Model checking

Edmund M Clarke. Model checking. InInternational conference on foundations of software technology and theoretical computer science, pages 54–56. Springer, 1997

1997
[7]

Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems

Karl Cobbe et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[8]

Z3: An efficient SMT solver

Leonardo de Moura and Nikolaj Bjørner. Z3: An efficient SMT solver. InProceedings of the International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), pages 337–340, 2008

2008
[9]

DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Ruoyu Zhang, Shirong Ma, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[10]

Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network

Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. InNeurIPS Deep Learning Workshop, 2014. arXiv:1503.02531

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[11]

Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022

work page 2022
[12]

Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Report

Binyuan Hui et al. Qwen2.5-Coder technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12186, 2024

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[13]

Fveval: Understand- ing language model capabilities in formal verification of digital hardware

Minwoo Kang, Mingjie Liu, Ghaith Bany Hamad, Syed M Suhaib, and Haoxing Ren. Fveval: Understand- ing language model capabilities in formal verification of digital hardware. In2025 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference (DATE), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2025

2025
[14]

StarCoder: may the source be with you!

Raymond Li, Loubna Ben Allal, Yangtian Zi, Niklas Muennighoff, Denis Kocetkov, Chenghao Mou, Marc Marone, Christopher Akiki, Jia Li, Jenny Chim, et al. Starcoder: may the source be with you!arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06161, 2023

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[15]

Let's Verify Step by Step

Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step. InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024. arXiv:2305.20050

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[16]

Assertfix: Empowering automated assertion fix via large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.23972, 2025

Hongqin Lyu, Yunlin Du, Yonghao Wang, Zhiteng Chao, Tiancheng Wang, and Huawei Li. Assertfix: Empowering automated assertion fix via large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.23972, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

Mehta.SystemVerilog Assertions and Functional Coverage: Guide to Language, Methodology and Applications

Ashok B. Mehta.SystemVerilog Assertions and Functional Coverage: Guide to Language, Methodology and Applications. Springer, 3 edition, 2020

2020
[18]

Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code

Baptiste Roziere, Jonas Gehring, Fabian Gloeckle, Sten Sootla, Itai Gat, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Yossi Adi, Jingyu Liu, Romain Sauvestre, Tal Remez, et al. Code llama: Open foundation models for code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12950, 2023

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[19]

DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models

Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Yang Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[20]

Yosys-a free verilog synthesis suite

Clifford Wolf, Johann Glaser, and Johannes Kepler. Yosys-a free verilog synthesis suite. InProceedings of the 21st Austrian Workshop on Microelectronics (Austrochip), volume 97, pages 1–6, 2013

2013
[21]

Qimeng-codev-sva: Training specialized llms for hardware assertion generation via rtl-grounded bidirectional data synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14239, 2026

Yutong Wu, Chenrui Cao, Pengwei Jin, Di Huang, Rui Zhang, Xishan Zhang, Zidong Du, Qi Guo, and Xing Hu. Qimeng-codev-sva: Training specialized llms for hardware assertion generation via rtl-grounded bidirectional data synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14239, 2026

work page arXiv 2026
[22]

Assertllm: Generating hardware verification assertions from design specifications via multi-llms

Zhiyuan Yan, Wenji Fang, Mengming Li, Min Li, Shang Liu, Zhiyao Xie, and Hongce Zhang. Assertllm: Generating hardware verification assertions from design specifications via multi-llms. InProceedings of the 30th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference, pages 614–621, 2025

2025
[23]

Qwen3 Technical Report

An Yang et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025. 10 A Terminology and Benchmark Composition Terminology.Table 3 summarizes the main abbreviations used in the paper. We use TCL and its C1/C2/C3 classes only as a diagnostic description of temporal-operator structure; semantic correctness is measured by JasperGold pass@kand, for t...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[24]

/proc/.*\/stat

Yet Pilots 3, 4, 4b, 5, and 6 all evaluate at or below the SFT-50% baseline at every checkpoint. The disconnect is the training-vs-evaluation distribution gap: the multi-reference pool is built by paraphrasing NL2SV A-Machine, which uses synthetic signal names (sig_F, sig_H, . . . ), while NL2SV A-Human uses real-world signal naming. The policy fits the t...

2016
[25]

Guidelines: • The answer [N/A] means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or ...