Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1407.6342

RTL2RTL Formal Equivalence: Boosting the Design Confidence

M V Achutha Kiran Kumar·Aarti Gupta·S S Bindumadhava
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Increasing design complexity driven by feature and performance requirements and the Time to Market (TTM) constraints force a faster design and validation closure. This in turn enforces novel ways of identifying and debugging behavioral inconsistencies early in the design cycle. Addition of incremental features and timing fixes may alter the legacy design behavior and would inadvertently result in undesirable bugs. The most common method of verifying the correctness of the changed design is to run a dynamic regression test suite before and after the intended changes and compare the results, a method which is not exhaustive. Modern Formal Verification (FV) techniques involving new methods of proving Sequential Hardware Equivalence enabled a new set of solutions for the given problem, with complete coverage guarantee. Formal Equivalence can be applied for proving functional integrity after design changes resulting from a wide variety of reasons, ranging from simple pipeline optimizations to complex logic redistributions. We present here our experience of successfully applying the RTL to RTL (RTL2RTL) Formal Verification across a wide spectrum of problems on a Graphics design. The RTL2RTL FV enabled checking the design sanity in a very short time, thus enabling faster and safer design churn. The techniques presented in this paper are applicable to any complex hardware design.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.AR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M V Achutha Kiran Kumar, Aarti Gupta, S S Bindumadhava. 2014-07-15. RTL2RTL Formal Equivalence: Boosting the Design Confidence. https://doi.org/10.4204/eptcs.156.7

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AgentPack: A Dataset of Code Changes, Co-Authored by Agents and Humans

Fine-tuning large language models for code editing has typically relied on mining commits and pull requests. The working hypothesis has been that commit messages describe human intent in natural language, and patches to code describe the changes that implement that intent. However, much of the previously collected data is noisy: commit messages are terse, human-written commits commingle several unrelated edits, and many commits come from simple, rule-based bots. The recent adoption of software engineering agents changes this landscape. Code changes \emph{co-authored} by humans and agents are often accompanied by substantially more explicit natural-language descriptions of intent and rationale. Moreover, when these changes land in public repositories, they are implicitly filtered by humans: maintainers discard low-quality commits to their projects. We present AgentPack, a corpus of 1.8M code edits co-authored by Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, and Cursor Agent across public GitHub projects up to early October 2025. We describe the identification and curation pipeline, quantify adoption trends of these agents, and analyze the structural properties of the edits. Finally, we show that models fine-tuned on AgentPack can outperform models trained on prior human-only commit corpora, highlighting the potential of using public data from software engineering agents to train future code-editing models.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Clarity Is Not Assumed: Understanding LLM-Based Code Generation under Ambiguous Requirements

Software requirement ambiguity is ubiquitous in real-world development, stemming from the inherent imprecision of natural language and the varying interpretations of stakeholders. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in generating code from precise specifications, such ambiguity poses a significant obstacle to reliable automated code generation. Existing benchmarks typically assume clear and unambiguous requirements, leaving an empirical gap in understanding how LLMs behave when faced with the inherent uncertainty of real-world software requirements. In this paper, we introduce Orchid, the first code generation benchmark specifically designed with ambiguous requirements. It comprises 1,304 function-level tasks covering four distinct types of ambiguity: lexical, syntactic, semantic, and vagueness. Leveraging this dataset, we conduct the first systematic empirical study to evaluate the impact of requirement ambiguity on LLM-based code generation. Our results demonstrate that ambiguity consistently degrades the performance of all evaluated LLMs, with the most pronounced negative effects observed in highly advanced models. Furthermore, we observe that LLMs frequently produce functionally divergent implementations for the same ambiguous requirement and lack the capability to identify or resolve such ambiguity autonomously. These findings reveal a significant performance gap between clear and ambiguous requirements, underscoring the urgent need for ambiguity-aware techniques in the next generation of automated software engineering tools. The Orchid benchmark is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/SII-YDD/Orchid.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

FLARE: Fine-Grained Diagnostic Feedback for LLM Code Refinement

Large language models often generate code with bugs. Existing methods rely on feedback signals such as test failures and self-critiques to iteratively refine the generated code. Such signals are either too coarse-grained or too high-level, which is not sufficient to inform the model where to fix the bug. In this work, we present Flare, an iterative framework with a lightweight diagnostic model that predicts line-level suspiciousness signals for bug localization and code refinement. Given the inherent uncertainty of diagnostic predictions, Flare searches over the top-k suspicious regions and selects the best candidate according to execution outcomes. Experiments on LiveCodeBench and BigCodeBench with five base LLMs show that, even without candidate search (k=1), Flare outperforms the strongest baseline with an absolute improvement from 1.72% to 7.42%. Furthermore, searching over 10 candidates yields an average improvement of 8.50% compared with no candidate search. When evaluated in isolation, our lightweight diagnostic model achieves the best performance compared with recent fault localization methods, demonstrating that it can provide reliable fine-grained guidance for code refinement.

cs.SE↗