arxiv: 2604.18162 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 💻 cs.AR

Recognition: unknown

VerilogCL: A Contrastive Learning Framework for Robust LLM-Based Verilog Generation

Yan Tan , Tong Liu , Xiangchen Meng , Yangdi Lyu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 04:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AR

keywords Verilog generationcontrastive learningLLM code generationRTL designerror screeninghardware description languagefunctional correctnesscompilation success

0 comments

The pith

Contrastive learning on minimal-error Verilog pairs teaches LLMs a sharper boundary between valid and invalid RTL, lifting both compilation rates and functional correctness.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that generating paired training examples of correct Verilog and versions with only small introduced errors, then training with contrastive loss, lets the model separate good and bad designs more clearly in its internal representations. This matters because hardware description languages like Verilog demand both syntactic validity for compilation and correct behavior, yet LLMs trained on limited data routinely produce outputs that fail on one or both fronts. Adding a screening step that combines embedding similarity with token uncertainty allows the system to discard weak candidates during generation. If the approach holds, it provides a data-efficient way to improve reliability in automated hardware design flows without relying on much larger datasets.

Core claim

The central claim is that minimal-error data augmentation creates training pairs of correct RTL and minimally perturbed erroneous RTL, contrastive learning then enforces clearer separation between correct and erroneous code in representation space, and a proactive screening module that fuses semantic embeddings with token-level uncertainty filters low-confidence outputs at generation time. On benchmarks including VerilogEval and RTLLM this yields higher compilation success rates and functional correctness than open-source, Verilog-specialized, and commercial baselines even with a 7B-parameter model.

What carries the argument

Minimal-error data augmentation that produces paired correct and slightly erroneous RTL samples, processed through contrastive learning to sharpen the validity boundary, combined with an inference-time screening filter based on embeddings and uncertainty scores.

If this is right

A 7B model using the framework exceeds the performance of larger open-source and commercial baselines on both compilation success and functional correctness.
The method improves separation between valid and invalid code without requiring additional post-hoc tuning on the public test sets.
Proactive screening reduces the number of invalid candidates that reach the final output.
The approach works on existing public benchmarks for Verilog generation tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same minimal-error pairing and contrastive boundary learning could be tested on other hardware description languages such as VHDL where data scarcity is also an issue.
The screening module could be added as a lightweight post-processing step to existing LLM pipelines for hardware code to cut down on manual debugging iterations.
Focusing training on boundary distinctions rather than sheer data volume may reduce the dataset size needed for reliable hardware code generation in other constrained domains.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the distinctions created by artificially introducing minimal errors during training data preparation match the actual failure modes that arise when LLMs generate Verilog from natural-language prompts.

What would settle it

Train an otherwise identical model without the contrastive loss or without the minimal-error paired samples and measure whether the gains in compilation success rate and functional correctness on VerilogEval and RTLLM disappear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18162 by Tong Liu, Xiangchen Meng, Yangdi Lyu, Yan Tan.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Overview of VerilogCL. The framework combines minimal-error augmentation, contrastive learning, and proactive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Triplet construction for minimal-error contrastive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Validation-set F1 score under different screening [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: PCA visualization of semantic embeddings before [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Success rate comparison on the RTLLM v1.1 bench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently achieved strong performance in software code generation. However, applying them to hardware description languages (HDLs), such as Verilog, remains challenging because high-quality training data are relatively scarce. In practice, LLM-generated Verilog often contains syntactic or structural errors that either cause compilation failures or produce functionally incorrect designs, which limit its reliability in hardware design workflows. In this work, we propose VerilogCL, an integrated framework that enhances Verilog code generation by explicitly learning the boundary between correct and erroneous RTL through contrastive learning and proactive error screening. Our approach introduces minimal-error data augmentation, generating paired training samples of correct RTL and minimally perturbed erroneous RTL to teach the model to recognize fine-grained distinctions between correct and erroneous code. We then apply contrastive learning to learn a clearer validity boundary in the representation space, improving the separation between correct and erroneous RTL code. In addition, we introduce a proactive screening module that combines semantic embeddings with token-level uncertainty features to filter low-confidence candidates during generation. Experiments on public benchmarks, including VerilogEval and RTLLM, show that our 7B-parameter model outperforms the evaluated open-source, Verilog-specialized, and commercial baselines in both compilation success rate and functional correctness.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The contrastive pipeline with minimal-error augmentation is a reasonable engineering extension for Verilog LLMs, but the abstract supplies no numbers, ablations, or error-distribution checks, so the claimed gains stay unverified.

read the letter

The new element is the specific combination of minimal-perturbation augmentation to create negative Verilog pairs, contrastive learning to sharpen the validity boundary in embedding space, and a token-plus-embedding uncertainty screen at generation time. That pipeline is not in the prior Verilog LLM literature the abstract cites, and it directly targets the scarcity of high-quality HDL data plus the syntax-plus-function requirement that trips up current models. The framing is practical: hardware designers spend most of their time debugging RTL, so anything that raises first-pass success on standard benchmarks like VerilogEval and RTLLM is worth examining. The 7B model size also keeps the work accessible rather than scaling to frontier sizes for marginal gains. The central claim is that this setup beats open-source, Verilog-specialized, and commercial baselines on both compilation rate and functional correctness. That is a concrete, falsifiable statement on public benchmarks, which is better than many generation papers that only report pass@k on synthetic tasks. The stress-test concern about augmentation is fair to raise from the abstract alone. Real LLM Verilog errors often involve non-local structural problems, incorrect instantiations, or timing violations rather than tiny local flips. If the minimal perturbations produce negatives that are either too easy to distinguish or unrepresentative of actual generation failures, the contrastive objective plus screening may not generalize. The abstract does not report ablations that isolate the contrastive term, the screening module, or the augmentation itself, nor any statistical tests or confidence intervals on the deltas. There are also free parameters (temperature, margin, uncertainty threshold) whose sensitivity is not discussed. This work is aimed at the small but growing group of researchers and tool builders working on LLM-assisted RTL drafting inside EDA flows. A reader who already runs VerilogEval-style evaluations or fine-tunes code models for hardware would get immediate value from the pipeline description and could test the augmentation idea themselves. It deserves peer review. The benchmarks are standard, the problem statement is honest, and the proposed components are implementable; referees can demand the missing numbers, ablations, and error analysis without the paper being fundamentally broken.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes VerilogCL, a framework for LLM-based Verilog generation that combines minimal-error data augmentation to create correct/erroneous RTL pairs, contrastive learning to sharpen the validity boundary in representation space, and a proactive screening module that fuses semantic embeddings with token-level uncertainty to filter low-confidence outputs. The central empirical claim is that the resulting 7B-parameter model outperforms open-source, Verilog-specialized, and commercial baselines on the VerilogEval and RTLLM benchmarks in both compilation success rate and functional correctness.

Significance. If the performance gains are shown to be robust via ablations and representative error distributions, the work could offer a practical route to more reliable automated HDL generation despite scarce high-quality training data. The explicit contrastive objective and uncertainty screening constitute a coherent integration that may generalize to other code-generation domains where syntactic validity and functional correctness must be jointly enforced.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: the outperformance claim is stated without any numerical deltas, absolute success rates, baseline scores, or statistical tests, which is load-bearing for the central empirical contribution and prevents verification of whether the reported gains exceed what standard fine-tuning already achieves.
[Method] Method (minimal-error data augmentation): the assumption that minimally perturbed erroneous RTL constitute representative negative examples is not justified; real LLM Verilog failures commonly involve non-local structural mismatches, incorrect module instantiations, or timing violations that minimal local edits do not capture, risking that the contrastive objective learns an artificial rather than practically useful decision boundary.
[Experiments] Experiments: no ablation results isolate the contribution of contrastive learning versus the screening module, nor are confidence intervals or significance tests reported for the benchmark improvements, leaving open whether the claimed superiority is attributable to the proposed components or to uncontrolled factors such as training data volume or prompt engineering.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract and method sections would benefit from explicit pseudocode or a small illustrative example of the minimal-error augmentation procedure and the exact form of the contrastive loss.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important opportunities to strengthen the presentation of empirical results and the justification of our methodological choices. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the outperformance claim is stated without any numerical deltas, absolute success rates, baseline scores, or statistical tests, which is load-bearing for the central empirical contribution and prevents verification of whether the reported gains exceed what standard fine-tuning already achieves.

Authors: We agree that the abstract would be more informative with concrete metrics. The current version prioritizes brevity, but we will revise it to report absolute compilation success rates and functional correctness scores for VerilogCL and the primary baselines (open-source, Verilog-specialized, and commercial models), along with the observed relative improvements. Statistical significance tests will remain in the experiments section due to abstract length constraints, but the numerical deltas will allow readers to assess the gains directly. revision: yes
Referee: [Method] Method (minimal-error data augmentation): the assumption that minimally perturbed erroneous RTL constitute representative negative examples is not justified; real LLM Verilog failures commonly involve non-local structural mismatches, incorrect module instantiations, or timing violations that minimal local edits do not capture, risking that the contrastive objective learns an artificial rather than practically useful decision boundary.

Authors: We acknowledge that minimal local perturbations do not encompass every class of LLM error, particularly non-local structural or timing issues. Our design choice targets the fine-grained boundary cases that frequently arise from small syntactic or semantic slips in LLM outputs, which are precisely the errors that standard generation struggles to avoid. Larger structural failures are intended to be filtered by the proactive screening module and post-generation compilation checks. To address the concern, we will expand the method section with a characterization of common LLM Verilog error distributions drawn from our development set, demonstrating the prevalence of minimal-edit errors, and will add a limitations paragraph noting that the contrastive pairs focus on a practically relevant but not exhaustive subset of failure modes. revision: partial
Referee: [Experiments] Experiments: no ablation results isolate the contribution of contrastive learning versus the screening module, nor are confidence intervals or significance tests reported for the benchmark improvements, leaving open whether the claimed superiority is attributable to the proposed components or to uncontrolled factors such as training data volume or prompt engineering.

Authors: We agree that isolating component contributions and providing statistical rigor would strengthen the claims. In the revised manuscript we will add ablation studies that remove contrastive learning and the screening module independently, reporting their individual effects on both VerilogEval and RTLLM. We will also include confidence intervals for all reported metrics and apply appropriate statistical tests (e.g., McNemar’s test for paired success rates) to evaluate significance against baselines. These additions will help confirm that gains arise from the proposed techniques rather than extraneous factors. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard empirical ML pipeline with benchmark-driven results

full rationale

The paper describes a contrastive learning framework using minimal-error data augmentation to create positive/negative RTL pairs, followed by contrastive training and an uncertainty-based screening module. No equations, derivations, or predictions are presented that reduce the claimed outperformance to a fitted parameter or self-referential definition by construction. Results are reported directly from experiments on VerilogEval and RTLLM benchmarks rather than derived from the method itself. No load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems are invoked. The derivation chain is self-contained and independent of its outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard supervised contrastive learning assumptions plus the untested premise that tiny syntactic perturbations create useful negatives for RTL validity; no new physical entities or ungrounded constants are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Contrastive temperature and margin
Typical hyperparameters in contrastive objectives that must be chosen or tuned for the Verilog domain.
Uncertainty threshold for screening
Decision threshold for the proactive filter, chosen to balance rejection rate against correctness.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Minimal perturbations of correct RTL produce negative examples whose distinctions are learnable and generalize to LLM generation errors
Invoked when describing the data-augmentation step; no independent verification supplied in abstract.
domain assumption Semantic embeddings plus token uncertainty form a reliable proxy for functional correctness
Basis for the screening module; correctness of this proxy is assumed rather than proven.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5528 in / 1365 out tokens · 45560 ms · 2026-05-10T04:01:47.488628+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

[1]

Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code

B. Roziere, J. Gehring, F. Gloeckle, S. Sootla, I. Gat, X. E. Tan, Y. Adi, J. Liu, R. Sauvestre, T. Remezet al., “Code Llama: Open foundation models for code, ” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12950, 2023

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023
[2]

DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligence

D. Guo, Q. Zhu, D. Yang, Z. Xie, K. Dong, W. Zhang, G. Chen, X. Bi, Y. Wu, Y. Li et al., “DeepSeek-Coder: When the large language model meets programming – the rise of code intelligence, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14196, 2024

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[3]

Qwen Technical Report

J. Bai, S. Bai, Y. Chu, Z. Cui, K. Dang, X. Deng, Y. Fan, W. Ge, Y. Han, F. Huang et al., “Qwen technical report, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609, 2023. VerilogCL: A Contrastive Learning Framework for Robust LLM-Based Verilog Generation

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[4]

On the robustness of code generation techniques: An empirical study on github copilot,

A. Mastropaolo, L. Pascarella, E. Guglielmi, M. Ciniselli, S. Scalabrino, R. Oliveto, and G. Bavota, “On the robustness of code generation techniques: An empirical study on github copilot, ” in2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2149–2160

2023
[5]

Code- gen2: Lessons for training llms on programming and natural languages

E. Nijkamp, H. Hayashi, C. Xiong, S. Savarese, and Y. Zhou, “Codegen2: Lessons for training llms on programming and natural languages, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02309, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[6]

Benchmarking large language models for automated verilog rtl code generation,

S. Thakur, B. Ahmad, Z. Fan, H. Pearce, B. Tan, R. Karri, B. Dolan-Gavitt, and S. Garg, “Benchmarking large language models for automated verilog rtl code generation, ” in2023 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

2023
[7]

A deep learning framework for verilog autocompletion towards design and verification automation,

E. Dehaerne, B. Dey, S. Halder, and S. De Gendt, “A deep learning framework for verilog autocompletion towards design and verification automation, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13840, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[8]

OpenLLM-RTL: Open dataset and bench- mark for llm-aided design rtl generation(invited),

S. Liu, Y. Lu, W. Fang, M. Li, and Z. Xie, “OpenLLM-RTL: Open dataset and bench- mark for llm-aided design rtl generation(invited), ” in2024 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD). ACM, 2024

2024
[9]

Verilogeval: Evaluating large language models for verilog code generation,

M. Liu, N. Pinckney, B. Khailany, and H. Ren, “Verilogeval: Evaluating large language models for verilog code generation, ” in2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–8

2023
[10]

RtlCoder: Outperforming gpt-3.5 in design rtl generation with our open-source dataset and lightweight solution,

S. Liu, W. Fang, Y. Lu, Q. Zhang, H. Zhang, and Z. Xie, “RtlCoder: Outperforming gpt-3.5 in design rtl generation with our open-source dataset and lightweight solution, ” in2024 IEEE LLM Aided Design Workshop (LAD). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–5

2024
[11]

Origen: Enhancing rtl code generation with code-to-code augmentation and self-reflection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16237, 2024

F. Cui, C. Yin, K. Zhou, Y. Xiao, G. Sun, Q. Xu, Q. Guo, D. Song, D. Lin, X. Zhang et al., “OriGen: Enhancing rtl code generation with code-to-code augmentation and self-reflection, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16237, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[12]

Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code

M. Chen, J. Tworek, H. Jun, Q. Yuan, H. P. D. O. Pinto, J. Kaplan, H. Edwards, Y. Burda, N. Joseph, G. Brockmanet al., “Evaluating large language models trained on code, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[13]

AutoChip: Automating hdl generation using llm feedback,

S. Thakur, J. Blocklove, H. Pearce, B. Tan, S. Garg, and R. Karri, “Autochip: Automating hdl generation using llm feedback, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04887, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[14]

RTLFixer: Automatically fixing rtl syntax errors with large language model,

Y. Tsai, M. Liu, and H. Ren, “RTLFixer: Automatically fixing rtl syntax errors with large language model, ” inProceedings of the 61st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, 2024, pp. 1–6

2024
[15]

Verilogcoder: Autonomous verilog coding agents with graph-based planning and abstract syntax tree (ast)-based waveform tracing tool,

C.-T. Ho, H. Ren, and B. Khailany, “Verilogcoder: Autonomous verilog coding agents with graph-based planning and abstract syntax tree (ast)-based waveform tracing tool, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08927, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[16]

HLSDebugger: Identification and correction of logic bugs in hls code with llm solutions,

J. Wang, S. Liu, Y. Lu, and Z. Xie, “HLSDebugger: Identification and correction of logic bugs in hls code with llm solutions, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.21485, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

Betterv: Controlled verilog generation with discriminative guidance,

Z. Pei, H.-L. Zhen, M. Yuan, Y. Huang, and B. Yu, “Betterv: Controlled verilog generation with discriminative guidance, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03375, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[18]

Christiaan Baaij, Matthijs Kooijman, Jan Kuper, Arjan Boeijink, and Marco Gerards

K. Chang, Y. Wang, H. Ren, M. Wang, S. Liang, Y. Han, H. Li, and X. Li, “Chipgpt: How far are we from natural language hardware design, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14019, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[19]

Mage: A multi-agent engine for automated rtl code generation,

Y. Zhao, H. Zhang, H. Huang, Z. Yu, and J. Zhao, “Mage: A multi-agent engine for automated rtl code generation, ” in2025 62nd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2025, pp. 1–7

2025
[20]

Vflow: Discovering optimal agentic workflows for verilog generation,

Y. Wei, Z. Huang, L. He, L. Huang, T.-J. Lin, and W. W. Xing, “Vflow: Discovering optimal agentic workflows for verilog generation, ” in2026 31st Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC), 2026, pp. 355–361

2026
[21]

DecoRTL: A run-time decoding framework for rtl code generation with llms,

M. Akyash, K. Azar, and H. Kamali, “DecoRTL: A run-time decoding framework for rtl code generation with llms, ” in2025 IEEE/ACM International Conference On Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 2025, pp. 1–9

2025
[22]

Speculative decoding for verilog: Speed and quality, all in one,

C. Xu, Y. Liu, Y. Zhou, S. Huang, N. Xu, and Q. Xu, “Speculative decoding for verilog: Speed and quality, all in one, ” in2025 62nd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2025, pp. 1–7

2025
[23]

An empirical study of training self-supervised vision transformers,

X. Chen, S. Xie, and K. He, “An empirical study of training self-supervised vision transformers, ” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 9640–9649

2021
[24]

Unsupervised embedding learning via invariant and spreading instance feature,

M. Ye, X. Zhang, P. C. Yuen, and S.-F. Chang, “Unsupervised embedding learning via invariant and spreading instance feature, ” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 6210–6219

2019
[25]

Big self- supervised models are strong semi-supervised learners,

T. Chen, S. Kornblith, K. Swersky, M. Norouzi, and G. E. Hinton, “Big self- supervised models are strong semi-supervised learners, ”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 22 243–22 255, 2020

2020
[26]

Contrastive code representation learning,

P. Jain, A. Jain, T. Zhang, P. Abbeel, J. Gonzalez, and I. Stoica, “Contrastive code representation learning, ” inProceedings of the 2021 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 2021, pp. 5954–5971

2021
[27]

Code representation learning at scale,

D. Zhang, W. U. Ahmad, M. Tan, H. Ding, R. Nallapati, D. Roth, X. Ma, and B. Xiang, “Code representation learning at scale, ” inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=vfzRRjumpX

2024
[28]

Unixcoder: Unified cross-modal pre-training for code representation,

D. Guo, S. Lu, N. Duan, Y. Wang, M. Zhou, and J. Yin, “Unixcoder: Unified cross- modal pre-training for code representation, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03850, 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[29]

Yosys open synthesis suite,

C. Wolf, “Yosys open synthesis suite, ” https://yosyshq.net/yosys/, 2013

2013
[30]

RTLLM: An open-source benchmark for design rtl generation with large language model,

Y. Lu, S. Liu, Q. Zhang, and Z. Xie, “RTLLM: An open-source benchmark for design rtl generation with large language model, ” in2024 29th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 722–727

2024
[31]

A multi-expert large language model architecture for verilog code generation,

B. Nadimi and H. Zheng, “A multi-expert large language model architecture for verilog code generation, ” in2024 IEEE LLM Aided Design Workshop (LAD). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–5

2024
[32]

Introducing the next generation of claude,

Anthropic, “Introducing the next generation of claude, ” https://www.anthropic. com/, 2024

2024
[33]

GPT-3.5-Turbo,

OpenAI, “GPT-3.5-Turbo, ” 2023, accessed: 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-3-5

2023
[34]

GPT-4 Technical Report,

——, “GPT-4 Technical Report, ” 2023, accessed: 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openai.com/research/gpt-4

2023