Can EDA Tool Feedback Improve Verilog Generation by LLMs?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.11856v1
• Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 17:33:28 GMT
• Title: Can EDA Tool Feedback Improve Verilog Generation by LLMs?
• Authors: Jason Blocklove, Shailja Thakur, Benjamin Tan, Hammond Pearce, Siddharth Garg, Ramesh Karri,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are emerging as a potential tool to help generate fully functioning HDL code. We evaluate the ability of LLMs to leverage feedback from electronic design automation (EDA) tools to fix mistakes in their own generated Verilog.
• Score: 25.596711210493172
• License:
• 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 for an additional 41.9% less cost (overall decrease in cost over zero-shot of 89.6%).

Related papers

• Automatic Evaluation for Text-to-image Generation: Task-decomposed Framework, Distilled Training, and Meta-evaluation Benchmark [62.58869921806019]
  We propose a task decomposition evaluation framework based on GPT-4o to automatically construct a new training dataset. We design innovative training strategies to effectively distill GPT-4o's evaluation capabilities into a 7B open-source MLLM, MiniCPM-V-2.6. Experimental results demonstrate that our distilled open-source MLLM significantly outperforms the current state-of-the-art GPT-4o-base baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T08:06:06Z)
• Precision or Peril: Evaluating Code Quality from Quantized Large Language Models [0.5249805590164902]
  Quantization has emerged as a way to mitigate the memory overhead of Large Language Models. This study aims to evaluate the current code generation capabilities of smaller LLMs using various metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-16T01:31:29Z)
• MetRex: A Benchmark for Verilog Code Metric Reasoning Using LLMs [2.0921175288836746]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been applied to various hardware design tasks, including Verilog code generation, EDA tool scripting, and RTL bug fixing. In this paper, we assess the ability of LLMs to reason about post-synthesis metrics of Verilog designs. We introduce MetRex, a large-scale dataset comprising 25,868 Verilog HDL designs and their corresponding post-synthesis metrics, namely area, delay, and static power.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T19:52:58Z)
• Revisiting VerilogEval: Newer LLMs, In-Context Learning, and Specification-to-RTL Tasks [6.463959200930805]
  We evaluate new commercial and open-source models of varying sizes against an improved VerilogEval benchmark suite. We find a measurable improvement in commercial state-of-the-art models, with GPT-4 Turbo achieving a 59% pass rate on spec-to-RTL tasks. We also study the performance of open-source and domain-specific models that have emerged, and demonstrate that models can benefit substantially from ICL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T17:58:56Z)
• See What LLMs Cannot Answer: A Self-Challenge Framework for Uncovering LLM Weaknesses [51.975495361024606]
  We propose a Self-Challenge evaluation framework with human-in-the-loop. Starting from seed instances that GPT-4 fails to answer, we prompt GPT-4 to summarize error patterns that can be used to generate new instances. We then build a benchmark, SC-G4, consisting of 1,835 instances generated by GPT-4 using these patterns, with human-annotated gold responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T19:01:52Z)
• MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents [62.02920842630234]
  We show how to build small fact-checking models that have GPT-4-level performance but for 400x lower cost. We do this by constructing synthetic training data with GPT-4, which involves creating realistic yet challenging instances of factual errors. For evaluation, we unify datasets from recent work on fact-checking and grounding LLM generations into a new benchmark, LLM-AggreFact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T17:59:10Z)
• Data is all you need: Finetuning LLMs for Chip Design via an Automated design-data augmentation framework [50.02710905062184]
  This paper proposes an automated design-data augmentation framework, which generates high-volume and high-quality natural language aligned with Verilog and EDA scripts. The accuracy of Verilog generation surpasses that of the current state-of-the-art open-source Verilog generation model, increasing from 58.8% to 70.6% with the same benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-17T13:01:03Z)
• ML-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models and Agents for Machine Learning Tasks on Repository-Level Code [76.84199699772903]
  ML-Bench is a benchmark rooted in real-world programming applications that leverage existing code repositories to perform tasks. To evaluate both Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI agents, two setups are employed: ML-LLM-Bench for assessing LLMs' text-to-code conversion within a predefined deployment environment, and ML-Agent-Bench for testing autonomous agents in an end-to-end task execution within a Linux sandbox environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T12:03:21Z)
• VeriGen: A Large Language Model for Verilog Code Generation [22.837558083876743]
  We fine-tune pre-existing Large Language Models (LLMs) on Verilog datasets compiled from GitHub and Verilog textbooks. Here, our fine-tuned open-source CodeGen-16B model outperforms the commercial state-of-the-art GPT-3.5-turbo model with a 1.1% overall increase. Notably, it demonstrates a 41% improvement in generating syntactically correct Verilog code across various problem categories compared to its pre-trained counterpart.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T02:57:14Z)
• Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback [62.78755306241981]
  Self-Refine is an approach for improving initial outputs from large language models (LLMs) through iterative feedback and refinement. We evaluate Self-Refine across 7 diverse tasks, ranging from dialog response generation to mathematical reasoning, using state-of-the-art (GPT-3.5, ChatGPT, and GPT-4) LLMs. Our work demonstrates that even state-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-4 can be further improved at test time using our simple, standalone approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T18:30:01Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models for Automated Verilog RTL Code Generation [21.747037230069854]
  We characterize the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate useful Verilog. We construct an evaluation framework comprising test-benches for functional analysis and a flow to test the syntax of Verilog code. Our findings show that across our problem scenarios, the fine-tuning results in LLMs more capable of producing syntactically correct code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-13T16:34:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.