Independent Data-Integrity Verification for LLM-Driven Functional Coverage Closure in Hardware Design

arXiv:2610.21570v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents can write directed tests that close functional coverage, but coverage only shows that a state was reached, not that the data on the way there was correct. This is a long-known point in verification and we do not claim it as new. We describe a small coverage-closure agent that applies it to an LLM loop: coverage is read from the report that the simulation itself exports (cocotb-coverage YAML) and never taken from the model's account, and data integrity is checked by scoreboards that are separate from the model. On three architecturally distinct RTL designs (an asynchronous FIFO, a UART transmitter and an AHB2APB bridge) the agent raised coverage from 91.7%, 88.9% and 67.4% to 100% within its 8-iteration budget in every logged run, using one design-agnostic agent. A reactive scoreboard monitor attached to the FIFO's base testbench also found a clock-domain-crossing bug in the author's own stimulus code. The monitor is not yet attached to the LLM-generated tests, so their data integrity is not independently checked; one manual check on a single FIFO test is reported as preliminary. We list the weaknesses of this evidence: three designs, no baseline, no ablation, and logged runs that come from several agent checkpoints.

Abstract:LLM agents can write directed tests that close functional coverage, but coverage only shows that a state was reached, not that the data on the way there was correct. This is a long-known point in verification and we do not claim it as new. We describe a small coverage-closure agent that applies it to an LLM loop: coverage is read from the report that the simulation itself exports (cocotb-coverage YAML) and never taken from the model's account, and data integrity is checked by scoreboards that are separate from the model. On three architecturally distinct RTL designs (an asynchronous FIFO, a UART transmitter and an AHB2APB bridge) the agent raised coverage from 91.7%, 88.9% and 67.4% to 100% within its 8-iteration budget in every logged run, using one design-agnostic agent. A reactive scoreboard monitor attached to the FIFO's base testbench also found a clock-domain-crossing bug in the author's own stimulus code. The monitor is not yet attached to the LLM-generated tests, so their data integrity is not independently checked; one manual check on a single FIFO test is reported as preliminary. We list the weaknesses of this evidence: three designs, no baseline, no ablation, and logged runs that come from several agent checkpoints.

Hardware Architecture (cs.AR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Software Engineering (cs.SE)

arXiv:2610.21570 [cs.AR]

(or arXiv:2610.21570v1 [cs.AR] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.21570 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

analiza aiqbench

Independent Data-Integrity Verification for LLM-Driven Functional Coverage Closure in Hardware Design

Subiecte conexe