{"about":{"site":"https://codewithpapers.app","non_affiliation":"Code with Papers and Syntology are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Papers with Code, Meta, or the pwc-archive mirror.","licence":"CC BY-SA 4.0","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","attribution":"https://codewithpapers.app/attribution","modified":"archive material modified by Syntology; see the attribution page"},"url":"/paper/arxiv-2607-22759","title":"Benchmarking LLMs for Verilog Design Flows","arxiv_id":"2607.22759","date":"2026-07-23","proceeding":null,"authors":["Angshuman Chakravertty","Rahul Koshti","Buddhi Prakash Sharma","Vinay Chamola"],"abstract":"Large language models (LLMs) show promise in code generation, but their capabilities to produce correct, synthesizable hardware description language (HDL) code still remain to be properly benchmarked. Existing evaluations are primarily relying on pass@k metrics and lack proper end-to-end toolchain validation. This paper presents a reproducible benchmarking platform that evaluates open-source LLMs on Verilog RTL generation across 50 curated tasks consisting of combinational, sequential, finite state machine (FSM), and mixed designs. The pipeline consisting of constrained prompting, post-processing, and semantic-aware iterative refinement with waveform analysis, formal equivalence verification, and Abstract Syntax Tree (AST)-based repair validates the generated code via Verilator compilation and Icarus Verilog simulation. Across the 12 benchmarks and the 1,610 total runs evaluating three models of different sizes (Llama-3-8B, StarCoder2-7B, and TinyLlama-1.1B), the pipeline improved syntax validity from 0% to a 70.43% average and simulation pass rate to 51.8% across three open-source models. Most notably TinyLlama (1.1B parameters) achieved the highest individual syntax validity at 80.0%, with functional correctness comparable to the 8B model. The platform and dataset are open-source, enabling reproducible evaluation of generative AI for hardware design workflows.","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.22759","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.22759","source":{"archive":null,"snapshot":"2025-07-28","note":"not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen at the snapshot)","row_kind":"graph","title_abstract_authors_date":"arXiv metadata, CC0 1.0 (https://info.arxiv.org/help/license)"},"code_links":[],"tasks":[],"methods":[],"datasets_introduced":[],"methods_introduced":[],"results":[],"syntology":{"atlas_url":null,"mcp":null,"developers":"https://syntology.ai/developers","read_at":"2026-09-24T18:15:14+00:00","read_at_is":"when the build read Syntology's graph, not when any sample ran","claim":"Per-sample execution status on synthesized fixtures; not a correctness claim about the paper. Samples come from repositories linked to the paper, official or community; repo_kind says which.","repos":[{"mentioned_in_github":null,"is_official":null,"provenance":"deterministic:regex_extraction","mentioned_in_paper":null,"url":"https://github.com/Ganglet/Benchmarking-Generative-AIin-EDA-Workflows","reach":{"status":"gone","observed_at":"2026-09-16","how":"tree_404+repo_404"}}],"summary":{},"by_repo_kind":{},"repo_kind_vocabulary":{"official":"The archive marks this repository official for the paper","named_in_paper":"The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official","listed":"In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper","found_in_text":"Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted","community":"Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested"},"n_pointer_only_for_licence":0,"samples":[]},"arxiv_metadata":{"licence":"arXiv metadata, CC0 1.0 (https://info.arxiv.org/help/license)","fields":["title","abstract","authors","date"],"primary_category":"cs.LG","source":"arxiv_2026.jsonl"},"syntology_extracted_results":null}