Automatically Improving LLM-based Verilog Generation using EDA Tool Feedback
Bibliographic record
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%).
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".