Demonstrates systematic failure analysis of LLM-generated assertions in hardware modules, indicating significant gaps in functional correctness.
This paper presents the first systematic failure analysis of LLM-generated SystemVerilog assertions, replicating the VERT fine-tuning pipeline on OpenTitan's AES, UART, and SPI modules. After validating 125 assertions through Cadence JasperGold, results reveal a 75–83 percentage point gap between VERT's reported 96.25% functional correctness and the 12–30% success rate observed under formal verification, exposing limitations on VERT’s evaluation methodology as well as limitations in experiment replication. To explain this gap, I introduce a 4×7 classification framework organizing assertions by verification outcome and root cause, identifying configuration-dependent logic and temporal operator confusion as the dominant failure modes that must be addressed. I also argue for increased transparency and open-sourcing of LLM training and evaluation materials as a lack of reproducible experiments can hinder progress towards an LLM assertion generation engine that can reliably serve production hardware verification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Samya Rao Potlapalli (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: