(Security) Assertions by Large Language Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The security of computer systems typically relies on a hardware root of trust. As vulnerabilities in hardware can have severe implications on a system, there is a need for techniques to support security verification activities. Assertion-based verification is a popular verification technique that involves capturing design intent in a set of assertions that can be used in formal verification or testing-based checking. However, writing security-centric assertions is a challenging task. In this work, we investigate the use of emerging large language models (LLMs) for code generation in hardware assertion generation for security, where primarily natural language prompts, such as those one would see as code comments in assertion files, are used to produce SystemVerilog assertions. We focus our attention on a popular LLM and characterize its ability to write assertions out of the box, given varying levels of detail in the prompt. We design an evaluation framework that generates a variety of prompts, and we create a benchmark suite comprising real-world hardware designs and corresponding golden reference assertions that we want to generate with the LLM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it