Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 168 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 47 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 35 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 32 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 102 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 216 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 448 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 34 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Automated Multi-Agent Workflows for RTL Design (2509.20182v1)

Published 24 Sep 2025 in cs.AR and cs.AI

Abstract: The rise of agentic AI workflows unlocks novel opportunities for computer systems design and optimization. However, for specialized domains such as program synthesis, the relative scarcity of HDL and proprietary EDA resources online compared to more common programming tasks introduces challenges, often necessitating task-specific fine-tuning, high inference costs, and manually-crafted agent orchestration. In this work, we present VeriMaAS, a multi-agent framework designed to automatically compose agentic workflows for RTL code generation. Our key insight is to integrate formal verification feedback from HDL tools directly into workflow generation, reducing the cost of gradient-based updates or prolonged reasoning traces. Our method improves synthesis performance by 5-7% for pass@k over fine-tuned baselines, while requiring only a few hundred training examples, representing an order-of-magnitude reduction in supervision cost.

Summary

  • The paper demonstrates that VeriMaAS improves RTL synthesis accuracy by up to 7–12% while reducing fine-tuning needs.
  • It employs a cascading strategy with adaptive multi-agent operators that leverage formal verification feedback for dynamic operator selection.
  • Experimental results reveal significant gains in pass@1/pass@10 metrics and PPA optimization, underscoring its practical efficiency.

Automated Multi-Agent Workflows for RTL Design: The VeriMaAS Framework

Introduction

The paper presents VeriMaAS, a multi-agent orchestration framework for register-transfer level (RTL) code generation, targeting the synthesis and verification of hardware designs. The approach leverages agentic AI workflows, integrating formal verification feedback from hardware description language (HDL) tools directly into the workflow generation process. This integration enables dynamic refinement of agentic operator selection, reducing the need for extensive fine-tuning and minimizing inference costs. The framework is evaluated on state-of-the-art RTL benchmarks, demonstrating improved synthesis accuracy and efficiency compared to both fine-tuned and single-agent prompting baselines. Figure 1

Figure 1: VeriMaAS workflow: adaptive sampling of agentic operators for RTL tasks, with formal verification and synthesis feedback guiding dynamic operator selection.

Methodology

VeriMaAS operates by adaptively sampling a set of agentic reasoning operators—Zero-shot I/O, Chain-of-Thought (CoT), ReAct, Self-Refine, and Debate—based on the input RTL query and its difficulty. The multi-agent solution space O\mathbb{O} is composed of these operators, and the controller C\mathcal{C} dynamically selects operator sequences for each task. Candidate Verilog designs generated at each stage are synthesized and verified using Yosys and OpenSTA, with synthesis logs and error messages serving as feedback to inform subsequent operator selection.

The controller employs a cascading strategy, progressing through increasingly complex operators. At each stage, a confidence score scs_c is computed as the percentage of failing designs (due to synthesis or verification errors). If scs_c exceeds a stage-specific threshold τc\tau_c, the controller escalates to the next operator; otherwise, it terminates and returns the current solution set. Thresholds are learned via multi-objective optimization, balancing pass@k utility against token cost, and are tuned using a few hundred examples—an order-of-magnitude reduction in supervision compared to full model fine-tuning.

Experimental Results

VeriMaAS is evaluated on the VeriThoughts and VerilogEval benchmarks, using Yosys for synthesis and area estimation, and OpenSTA for timing and power analysis. The framework is tested with both proprietary and open-weight LLMs, as well as fine-tuned RTL models. Performance is measured using pass@1 and pass@10 metrics over 20 samples per query.

Key findings include:

  • Accuracy Gains: VeriMaAS yields up to 7–12% improvement in pass@1 over fine-tuned baselines for open-source LLMs, and consistent gains in pass@10, expanding the pool of valid candidate designs.
  • Token Efficiency: The framework maintains moderate token overhead, comparable to lightweight CoT prompting and significantly lower than iterative strategies like Self-Refine.
  • Closed-Source Models: Gains are smaller but consistent, indicating that multi-agent orchestration provides value even when base model performance is high.
  • PPA-Aware Optimization: By re-optimizing the controller for post-synthesis metrics (area, power, delay), VeriMaAS achieves up to 28.79% area reduction and notable improvements in runtime, with some trade-offs in power and pass@10.

Implications and Future Directions

VeriMaAS demonstrates that integrating formal verification feedback into agentic workflow generation can substantially improve RTL synthesis accuracy and efficiency, while reducing the need for costly fine-tuning. The framework's modular controller allows for flexible optimization of different design objectives, such as power, performance, and area (PPA), without entangling these goals in model weights.

The approach suggests several avenues for future research:

  • Controller Enhancement: Incorporating tree-search or RL-based policies could further improve operator selection and workflow efficiency.
  • EDA Tool Integration: Expanding orchestration signals to commercial EDA tools and process design kits (PDKs) would enable more comprehensive synthesis and PPA optimization.
  • Generalization: The methodology could be extended to other domains requiring formal verification and multi-agent reasoning, such as analog design or system-level hardware synthesis.

Conclusion

VeriMaAS introduces a principled multi-agent framework for RTL code generation, leveraging formal verification feedback to guide agentic workflow composition. The method achieves strong numerical improvements in synthesis accuracy and efficiency, with minimal supervision cost. Its flexible controller design and integration with EDA tools position it as a promising direction for automated hardware design and optimization. Future work will focus on enhancing controller policies and expanding integration with commercial synthesis flows to further advance agentic AI for hardware systems design.

Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Explain it Like I'm 14

What is this paper about?

This paper introduces VeriMaAS, an AI “teamwork” system that helps write and fix hardware code (called RTL, usually written in Verilog). Instead of relying on one big AI model or lots of expensive training, it uses several smaller reasoning styles that work together. The special trick: it feeds real feedback from hardware-checking tools straight back into the AI’s decision-making, so the AI can quickly learn which strategy to try next and when to stop.

What questions are the researchers asking?

They focus on three simple questions:

  • How can we get AI to write better hardware code without expensive, time‑consuming training?
  • Can a “team” of AI strategies do better than a single strategy by adapting to each problem’s difficulty?
  • If we use real hardware tool feedback (like compile errors, timing, and power numbers), can the AI choose smarter steps and improve results faster?

How did they do it?

Think of hardware design like building a detailed blueprint for a gadget’s brain (a chip). The language used is Verilog (an HDL), and the design level is RTL—like a step-by-step plan for how data moves through the chip.

VeriMaAS is like a coach that manages a small team of “thinking styles” (agents). Each style is a different way the AI can approach a problem:

  • Zero-shot I/O: answer directly (no extra reasoning).
  • Chain-of-Thought (CoT): think step-by-step before answering.
  • ReAct: think and use tools as you go.
  • Self-Refine: write an answer, then review and fix it.
  • Debate: have multiple AIs argue and pick the best ideas.

Here’s the key idea:

  • The system tries a simple strategy first (quick answers).
  • It runs the generated Verilog through real hardware tools (Yosys and OpenSTA). These are like strict referees that check if the code compiles, how much area it uses on a chip, how fast it runs, and how much power it needs.
  • If many attempts fail or look weak, the “coach” increases the difficulty level by adding more advanced strategies (like step-by-step thinking or self-fixing).
  • If things look good enough, it stops early and returns the best designs.

In everyday terms: imagine trying to fix a bike. You first try quick fixes. If that fails, you try more careful, step-by-step methods. If that still fails, you ask a friend to double-check your work, or you and a friend debate the best fix. All the while, you test the bike after each change (that’s like running the code through Yosys/OpenSTA). The tests tell you whether to keep going or stop.

How the “coach” learns when to switch strategies:

  • The coach uses simple “thresholds” based on how many attempts failed in the last round.
  • If too many designs fail the checks, it escalates to a more powerful reasoning style.
  • They “tune” these thresholds using only a few hundred examples (much cheaper than training a whole new model).
  • They also balance two things: how often the AI gets the answer right (utility) and how many tokens (compute and cost) it uses (cost).

What did they find?

Across two top benchmarks (VeriThoughts and VerilogEval), VeriMaAS improved both accuracy and efficiency.

Here are the highlights:

  • Better accuracy: It improved “pass@k” scores by about 5–7% compared to strong fine-tuned baselines. pass@k means: if the AI tries k times, what’s the chance at least one answer is correct? Higher pass@k = more good designs in the batch.
  • Less supervision: It needed only a few hundred examples to tune the controller, instead of tens of thousands to fine-tune a full model—an order-of-magnitude cheaper.
  • Works across models: It helped both open-source and closed-source AI models, with especially big gains on smaller open models (sometimes 7–12% pass@1).
  • Reasonable cost: It added only a moderate extra token cost (comparable to simple step-by-step prompting), and less than heavier strategies like repeated self-refinement.
  • Flexible goals (PPA-aware): By changing what it optimizes for, the system can aim to reduce area, power, or delay (PPA = Power, Performance, Area). On selected tasks, it cut area by up to about 29% and often improved speed, with some trade-offs (sometimes slightly higher power or small dips in accuracy).

Why this matters:

  • More valid designs per attempt means engineers (or future AI tools) have a better starting point, saving time.
  • Lower training and inference costs make advanced hardware design assistance more accessible.

Why is this important?

Chips power everything—from phones to cars to data centers. Designing them is hard and slow. This research shows a practical way to:

  • Make AI helpers for hardware design more reliable without huge training budgets.
  • Use real tool feedback (compile errors, timing, power) to guide AI reasoning in smart, automatic ways.
  • Adapt to different goals (like “make it smaller” or “make it faster”) just by changing how the controller makes decisions—no retraining the whole model.

In short, VeriMaAS is like a clever coach for a team of AI strategies. It listens to referees (hardware tools), chooses the right play as the game unfolds, and stops when good enough. This can speed up hardware design, cut costs, and make it easier to explore better, more efficient chip designs.

Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Knowledge Gaps

Knowledge gaps, limitations, and open questions

Below is a single, concrete list of what remains missing, uncertain, or unexplored in the paper, phrased to guide future research.

  • Controller optimization is not principled: per-stage thresholds are set by empirical percentiles over failure counts, rather than learned to optimize the stated objective. Conduct formal optimization (e.g., Bayesian optimization, bandits, RL) and provide sensitivity analyses to λ and threshold choices.
  • Feedback signal is coarse: the controller uses only the percentage of failing designs, conflating syntax, synthesis, timing, and power-analysis errors. Parse and weight error types (syntax vs. semantic vs. timing violations) and integrate richer signals (e.g., log embeddings, structured error codes).
  • Fixed cascade order may be suboptimal: operators are applied in a predetermined sequence. Explore adaptive operator ordering, operator subsets, and composition search (tree search, policy learning, GNN-based topology selection).
  • Ambiguity in mapping operators to sample generation: the formalization sets |O| = K = 20 but it is unclear how candidate samples are distributed across operators/stages, deduplicated, or combined. Specify and evaluate sampling allocation, deduplication, and union/selection strategies.
  • Potential data leakage or overfitting: thresholds are tuned on 500 VeriThoughts training samples; test-set isolation, cross-benchmark tuning, and out-of-distribution generalization are not analyzed. Provide clear split hygiene and evaluate portability to unseen tasks/datasets.
  • Functional correctness validation is under-specified: reliance on Yosys/OpenSTA does not guarantee behavioral correctness. Quantify correlation between EDA pass/fail and functional correctness; incorporate simulation testbenches, formal properties, or equivalence checking.
  • End-to-end cost is incomplete: only token costs are reported; EDA wall-clock time, CPU/memory usage, and tool invocation overhead are missing. Measure total throughput/latency and cost per solved task (LLM + EDA).
  • Scalability concerns: running 20 candidates per stage can be expensive for complex tasks. Investigate adaptive sample sizing, early stopping, and budget-aware candidate pruning.
  • Lack of per-operator contributions within VeriMaAS: while single-operator baselines are compared, there is no ablation showing operator usage rates, marginal gains, or failure modes inside the controller. Provide per-stage escalation statistics and operator-level impact.
  • PPA-focused evaluation is narrow: optimizing only area as the cost term leads to power/delay regressions in some cases. Adopt multi-objective formulations (Pareto fronts, constraints) and report trade-off surfaces across area–power–delay.
  • PPA-Tiny subset selection is biased: using o4 as a pseudo-oracle to select PPA-sensitive tasks may distort evaluation. Develop dataset-agnostic, reproducible selection criteria and validate on full benchmarks.
  • Physical design fidelity is limited: analyses use Sky130 and static timing/power without place-and-route or multi-corner PVT. Evaluate across technology nodes, P&R effects, IR drop, and multi-corner sign-off.
  • Controller lacks conditioning on query semantics: thresholds are global and do not adapt to task type (e.g., FSM vs. combinational) or prompt features. Learn policies conditioned on query features and intermediate log content.
  • Textual log feedback is not fully exploited: despite stating logs are provided to agents, the controller uses aggregate failure rates. Integrate structured log parsing to guide repair prompts (e.g., error-aware ReAct/Self-Refine strategies).
  • Benchmark coverage is limited: only VeriThoughts and VerilogEval are used. Assess generalization to larger hierarchical RTL, real-world IP cores, spec-to-RTL pipelines, and EDA scripting tasks.
  • Unexplained performance regressions: VerilogEval pass@10 drops in several settings are noted but not diagnosed. Perform error analyses to identify when and why multi-agent workflows harm diversity or correctness.
  • Reproducibility details are sparse: prompts, temperatures, seeds, tool versions/configs, and log parsing rules are not fully disclosed. Release standardized configs and scripts for deterministic runs.
  • Comparative fairness is unclear: inference budgets, sampling strategies (e.g., n, temperature), and tool usage across baselines may differ. Normalize budgets and report controlled comparisons.
  • Robustness/safety are unaddressed: behavior under adversarial specs, infeasible constraints, or tool nondeterminism is not studied. Evaluate robustness, failure containment, and safe fallback policies.
  • Toolchain coverage is narrow: missing linting (Verilator), dynamic simulation, bounded model checking, and formal equivalence. Quantify marginal utility of each tool integration and their synergy with agents.
  • Commercial EDA/PDK integration remains aspirational: practical integration, licensing constraints, API availability, and performance deltas on proprietary flows are not evaluated.
  • Human-in-the-loop aspects are absent: criteria for designer review, escalation triggers, and acceptance policies for production flows are not defined. Design interfaces and protocols for safe deployment.
Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Practical Applications

Immediate Applications

The following applications can be deployed with today’s toolchains (Yosys, OpenSTA, SkyWater 130nm PDK) and available LLMs/LRMs, leveraging the paper’s multi-agent controller, verification-in-the-loop orchestration, and PPA-aware tuning.

  • Sector: Semiconductors/EDA — “HDL Copilot” for RTL block authoring and debugging
    • Use case: Draft, iterate, and validate Verilog modules against a natural-language spec with automated multi-operator prompting (I/O → CoT → ReAct → Self-Refine → Debate) and immediate compilation/verification feedback from Yosys/OpenSTA.
    • Tools/products/workflows: VSCode/JetBrains plugin that runs VeriMaAS locally; Git pre-commit hook that compiles K=20 candidates and auto-escalates reasoning depth if logs show failures; selection of top-k candidates by pass@k + PPA heuristics.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Access to an LLM (open-weight or API), Yosys/OpenSTA, and a PDK (e.g., SkyWater 130nm); spec clarity sufficient for code synthesis; compute budget to evaluate K=20 candidates.
  • Sector: ASIC/FPGA Design Teams — Faster RTL prototyping with pass@k sampling
    • Use case: Generate 20 candidate RTL implementations, filter via formal checks, and return a short list of functionally correct designs to accelerate design space exploration, especially for leaf modules and utility IP.
    • Tools/products/workflows: CI job that runs candidate generation and synthesis; dashboard showing pass/fail logs and synthesis summaries; integration with OpenROAD flows for quick sanity-checks.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Module-level specs and test harnesses; open flows for early-stage validation (non-signoff accuracy).
  • Sector: EDA Automation — Log-driven auto-correction of HDL syntax/semantics
    • Use case: Automatically correct syntax and common semantic errors by feeding verification/synthesis logs back into the controller to trigger Self-Refine/ReAct steps, reducing human triage time.
    • Tools/products/workflows: “Autofix” button in IDE or CI that reruns agent operators when Yosys errors appear (width mismatches, latches, combinational loops).
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Error logs are sufficiently informative; consistent tool versions to avoid nondeterminism in error reporting.
  • Sector: Digital Design Education — Tutor for RTL labs and grading
    • Use case: Help students translate specs to RTL with structured hints, auto-compile their code, and provide step-up reasoning only when needed; auto-grade via pass@k under multiple seeds/tests.
    • Tools/products/workflows: LMS plugin that runs VeriMaAS with Yosys/OpenSTA; rubric mapping of pass/fail logs to feedback comments.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Institution can run open-source toolchains; assignments scoped to RTL-level verification.
  • Sector: Open-Source Hardware Communities — Contribution gating and review assistance
    • Use case: Pre-submit checks that ensure contributed RTL compiles and passes basic STA; auto-suggest minimal edits to meet basic area/timing targets.
    • Tools/products/workflows: GitHub Actions using VeriMaAS as a service; PR annotations with failing signals, timing paths, and suggested code-level fixes.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Contributors accept open tools; maintainers configure thresholds for acceptable failure rates at each agent stage.
  • Sector: SoC/IP Teams — PPA-aware RTL refinement for quick wins
    • Use case: When multiple functional candidates exist, prioritize those with lower area/delay using the controller’s cost-aware objective; realize measurable area/delay improvements on amenable modules.
    • Tools/products/workflows: “PPA-Aware Optimize” mode that re-weights the controller’s objective toward area or delay; reporting deltas vs. baseline; batch optimization for small IP libraries.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: PPA headroom varies by task (e.g., trivial logic has limited gains); open-source PPA estimates are indicative and not signoff-accurate; possible power trade-offs.
  • Sector: Startups/SMEs — Low-supervision controller tuning instead of costly fine-tuning
    • Use case: Tune the controller thresholds with a few hundred examples rather than fine-tuning models on tens of thousands of RTL pairs, reducing GPU cost and time-to-value.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Controller-threshold tuner that computes failure percentiles from synthesis logs; configuration export for CI/IDE integration.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Availability of a small labeled set (spec + reference RTL or robust test harness); workflow generalizes across adjacent RTL tasks but may need occasional retuning.
  • Sector: Research/Benchmarking — Lower-cost, higher-fidelity evaluation of RTL-capable LLMs
    • Use case: Compare new LLMs/LRMs under the same agentic pipeline and tool feedback; report pass@1/pass@10 with token-cost trade-offs.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Benchmark harness for VeriThoughts and VerilogEval with standardized K=20 sampling; experiment tracking of operator cascades and token usage.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Stable benchmark suites; compute to run batch syntheses; fairness across models in temperature/seeding.

Long-Term Applications

These applications are feasible but require further research, scaling, integration with commercial flows, or more robust controller policies (e.g., tree search or RL).

  • Sector: Enterprise EDA/Chip Design — Signoff-grade “HDL Copilot Pro” integrated with commercial tools
    • Use case: Integrate VeriMaAS with Synopsys/Cadence flows (Genus/DC, Innovus/ICC2, PrimeTime), commercial PDKs, and signoff constraints to generate RTL that meets timing/area/power at target nodes.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Plugin for commercial EDA GUIs/CLI; controller objectives extended to WNS/TNS, leakage/dynamic power, congestion risk; vendor-certified flows.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Licenses and APIs for commercial EDA; access to confidential PDKs; rigorous security and IP governance; validation on signoff criteria.
  • Sector: Architecture/DSE — Autonomous RTL design space exploration loops
    • Use case: Use multi-agent generation plus verification/PPA to explore microarchitectural variants (pipelining, resource sharing, parameterized datapaths), actively pruning with controller policies.
    • Tools/products/workflows: RL- or tree-search–based controllers; co-optimization with floorplanning and physical estimates (OpenROAD/OpenPhySyn + commercial counterparts).
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Fast, reliable PPA proxies; scalable compute for batch exploration; automated constraints synthesis from high-level specs.
  • Sector: Safety/Security/Compliance — Formal property-driven generation and auditing
    • Use case: Integrate property checking (assertions, equivalence checking, information flow security) into the controller’s feedback loop to generate RTL that satisfies safety/security invariants and audit trails.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Coupling with formal tools (e.g., model checking, equivalence checkers); audit logs linking prompts, operator choices, tool logs, and resulting RTL.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: High-quality property/spec definitions; mature formal tooling integration; policy frameworks that accept AI-assisted evidence.
  • Sector: Spec-to-RTL Pipelines — Requirements traceability and code generation from structured specs
    • Use case: End-to-end pipelines that translate structured requirements into RTL/testbenches, with iterative enforcement of functional and PPA constraints through agentic feedback.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Spec DSL, requirements databases, and test generation integrated with VeriMaAS; continuous reconciliation between spec, tests, and code.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Well-structured specs; robust test/coverage frameworks; governance for spec changes and traceability.
  • Sector: Cloud EDA Services — “VeriMaAS-as-a-Service” with elastic compute and cost controls
    • Use case: Hosted service that scales candidate generation, synthesis, and controller search; users set budgets, pass@k targets, and PPA objectives.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Job scheduler to batch K=20 synthesis runs; budget-aware controllers; usage analytics and per-module optimization profiles.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Secure handling of proprietary RTL/specs; multi-tenant isolation; predictable queueing for tool runs.
  • Sector: Education at Scale — Automated curricula and assessment for RTL design
    • Use case: MOOC-scale courses that personalize problem difficulty via controller thresholds; automated grading with formal checks and structured feedback; generation of diverse, correct-by-construction solutions.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Learning analytics tied to operator cascade stages; item banks auto-curated by PPA/complexity; proctoring-compatible sandboxes.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Institutional adoption; robust sandboxing; fairness considerations in AI-assisted learning.
  • Sector: IP Ecosystems — On-demand, PPA-optimized IP variants
    • Use case: Marketplace where common IP blocks (FIFOs, arbiters, encoders) are autogenerated/tuned to user constraints (latency, area, power), verified, and delivered with tool logs.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Parametric templates guided by VeriMaAS; guarantee bundles (pass@k, PPA ranges, corner coverage summaries).
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Contracted guarantees and liability frameworks; compatibility with customer toolchains and nodes.
  • Sector: Cross-Domain Design Automation — Extending verification-in-the-loop agentic control beyond RTL
    • Use case: Apply the method to HLS, testbench/UVM synthesis, or other domains with formal/static analyzers (e.g., protocol checkers, PCB rule checkers) to guide operator selection.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Abstract controller API for plugging domain-specific operators and verifiers; multi-objective cost functions for each domain.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Availability and reliability of formal/verification tools in the target domain; domain-specific datasets to tune thresholds; operator libraries.
  • Sector: Methods/Algorithms — RL/tree-search controllers and richer objectives
    • Use case: Replace percentile thresholds with learned policies that balance pass@k, token cost, and PPA; incorporate uncertainty estimates and early-exit logic.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Policy learning with online/offline logs; bandit/RL frameworks; speculative reasoning to cut token cost.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Sufficient training data from real flows; robust offline evaluation; mechanisms to prevent reward hacking and ensure safety.
  • Sector: Standards/Policy — Guidelines for AI-generated HDL in silicon development
    • Use case: Establish process controls for traceability, tool-log provenance, and minimum verification requirements (e.g., pass@k thresholds, PPA guardrails) for AI-assisted RTL entering tapeout flows.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Compliance checklists, audit artifacts (prompts, operator traces, tool logs), and review workflows.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Industry consensus; regulator and customer acceptance; compatibility with existing quality and security standards.

Notes on feasibility and trade-offs across applications:

  • The paper shows consistent pass@k improvements (up to ~7–12% pass@1 on open models) with moderate token overhead and only a few hundred examples for controller tuning; however, gains may be smaller on already strong reasoning models.
  • PPA-aware optimization demonstrates meaningful area/delay reductions on selected tasks, with potential power regressions or pass@10 trade-offs; signoff accuracy requires commercial flows and PDKs.
  • Open-source flows provide rapid feedback but are not substitutes for signoff; adopting the approach in advanced-node production flows needs integration with commercial EDA and governance for IP/security.
Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Glossary

  • AFlow: A method for automating agentic workflow generation in LLM-based systems. "Recent methods, such as MaAS~\cite{zhang2025maas}, Flow~\cite{niu2025flow}, and AFlow~\cite{zhang2025aflow}, improve task performance-cost trade-offs compared to monolithic LLM prompting with strong generalizability."
  • Agentic AI: AI systems that autonomously plan, coordinate, and act—often via multiple agents—to solve complex tasks. "Agentic AI presents exciting opportunities for system optimization and design~\cite{kwon2023efficient, fore2024geckopt, xu2025resource, paramanayakam2025less, singh2024llm, yubeaton2025verithoughts}."
  • Chain-of-Thought (CoT): A prompting technique that elicits step-by-step reasoning from LLMs. "Zero-shot I/O, Chain-of-Thought (CoT)~\cite{wei2022cot}, ReAct~\cite{yao2023react}, Self-Refine~\cite{madaan2023selfrefine}, and Debate~\cite{du2023debate}."
  • Debate: A multi-agent prompting operator where agents argue and critique to improve reasoning and factuality. "simple prompting operators such as Debate~\cite{du2023debate} yield robust performance on multiple-choice QA queries."
  • EDA (Electronic Design Automation): Tools and workflows for automating electronic circuit and chip design processes. "electronic design automation (EDA) tool scripting~\cite{wu2024chateda}."
  • Formal verification: Mathematical and tool-driven methods to prove hardware designs satisfy specifications. "integrate formal verification feedback from HDL tools directly into workflow generation."
  • HDL (Hardware Design Language): Languages used to describe and model hardware circuits (e.g., Verilog). "hardware design language (HDL) error debugging~\cite{hemadri2025veriloc, tsai2024rtlfixer}."
  • Large Reasoning Models (LRMs): Advanced LLMs optimized for extended reasoning capabilities. "frontier Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), such as OpenAI's o4~\cite{jaech2024openai}, achieve robust results on RTL coding benchmarks~\cite{yubeaton2025verithoughts} without fine-tuning."
  • MetRex: A benchmark and flow for evaluating Verilog designs on synthesis-related metrics. "following the MetRex synthesis benchmark~\cite{abdelatty2025metrex}."
  • Multi-agent framework: A system architecture where multiple specialized agents collaborate to solve tasks. "we present VeriMaAS, a multi-agent framework designed to automatically compose agentic workflows for RTL code generation."
  • OpenSTA: An open-source static timing analysis tool used for timing and (static) power evaluation of synthesized designs. "through OpenSTA~\cite{ajayi2019toward} for timing and power analysis."
  • pass@k: An evaluation metric indicating whether at least one of k generated solutions passes validation. "improves synthesis performance by 5–7\% for pass@k over fine-tuned baselines."
  • PDK (Process Design Kit): A collection of process-specific files, libraries, and rules for IC design with a given semiconductor technology. "Skywater 130nm PDK~\cite{skywater2020pdk}."
  • PPA (Power, Performance, Area): A set of key hardware design objectives balancing energy, speed, and silicon footprint. "optimizing for post-synthesis goals through PPA (power, performance, and area)–aware prompting."
  • PPA-aware optimization: Configuring workflows or controllers to explicitly target improvements in PPA metrics. "PPA-Aware Optimization"
  • Register-Transfer Level (RTL): A hardware design abstraction modeling data flow between registers and the logic operations per clock. "register-transfer level (RTL) code generation \citep{thakur2023benchmarking, liu2023verilogeval, pinckney2024revisiting, lu2024rtllm, yubeaton2025verithoughts, thakur2024verigen}."
  • ReAct: A prompting paradigm that interleaves reasoning with tool-based actions to solve tasks. "ReAct~\cite{yao2023react}"
  • Self-Refine: An iterative prompting method where models critique and refine their own outputs. "Self-Refine~\cite{madaan2023selfrefine}"
  • Skywater 130nm PDK: An open-source fabrication process kit enabling ASIC flows at the 130nm node. "Skywater 130nm PDK~\cite{skywater2020pdk}"
  • Static power analysis: Evaluation of leakage or non-switching power consumption after synthesis/place-and-route. "timing and static power analysis."
  • VerilogEval: A benchmark for evaluating LLMs on Verilog code generation tasks. "VerilogEval~\cite{pinckney2024revisiting}"
  • VeriMaAS: The proposed automated multi-agent workflow system integrating verification feedback for RTL generation. "VeriMaAS: Given RTL tasks with varying difficulty, we adaptively sample agentic operators: at each step, the selected operators are evaluated against formal verification and synthesis EDA tools."
  • VeriThoughts: A benchmark and framework emphasizing reasoning plus formal verification for Verilog generation. "VeriThoughts~\cite{yubeaton2025verithoughts}"
  • Yosys: An open-source logic synthesis and verification suite for Verilog designs. "pass Yosys checks~\cite{wolf2013yosys}"
  • Zero-shot I/O: A prompting operator that generates solutions from input-output specifications without intermediate reasoning steps. "Zero-shot I/O"
Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Open Problems

We found no open problems mentioned in this paper.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 2 tweets and received 1 like.

Upgrade to Pro to view all of the tweets about this paper:

Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

alphaXiv