Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Automatically Improving LLM-based Verilog Generation using EDA Tool Feedback

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.11856 v3 pith:2ZALNSVA submitted 2024-11-01 cs.AR cs.AIcs.PL

Automatically Improving LLM-based Verilog Generation using EDA Tool Feedback

classification cs.AR cs.AIcs.PL
keywords feedbackllmsverilogcostdesignsevaluateleveragemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Traditionally, digital hardware designs are written in the Verilog hardware description language (HDL) and debugged manually by engineers. This can be time-consuming and error-prone for complex designs. Large Language Models (LLMs) are emerging as a potential tool to help generate fully functioning HDL code, but most works have focused on generation in the single-shot capacity: i.e., run and evaluate, a process that does not leverage debugging and, as such, does not adequately reflect a realistic development process. In this work, we evaluate the ability of LLMs to leverage feedback from electronic design automation (EDA) tools to fix mistakes in their own generated Verilog. To accomplish this, we present an open-source, highly customizable framework, AutoChip, which combines conversational LLMs with the output from Verilog compilers and simulations to iteratively generate and repair Verilog. To determine the success of these LLMs we leverage the VerilogEval benchmark set. We evaluate four state-of-the-art conversational LLMs, focusing on readily accessible commercial models. EDA tool feedback proved to be consistently more effective than zero-shot prompting only with GPT-4o, the most computationally complex model we evaluated. In the best case, we observed a 5.8% increase in the number of successful designs with a 34.2% decrease in cost over the best zero-shot results. Mixing smaller models with this larger model at the end of the feedback iterations resulted in equally as much success as with GPT-4o using feedback, but incurred 41.9% lower cost (corresponding to an overall decrease in cost over zero-shot by 89.6%).

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. PCBWorld: A Benchmark Environment for Engine-Grounded PCB Design Automation

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    An open-source KiCad-grounded PCB routing environment and benchmark where agents interactively route boards via engine-native operations, with a PPO policy trained on synthetic boards achieving zero-shot transfer to r...