The Silicon Singularity: Bridging the Chasm Between Probabilistic Generative AI and Deterministic Hardware Correctness

1. Executive Manifesto: The Ten-Million-Dollar Null Pointer

The semiconductor industry stands at a precarious juncture, suspended between two opposing forces: the boundless, probabilistic creativity of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and the unforgiving, deterministic physics of nanometer-scale silicon. We are witnessing a gold rush. Electronic Design Automation (EDA) is being reimagined as vast armies of engineers turn to Large Language Models (LLMs) to accelerate the creation of Verilog and SystemVerilog code. The promise is seductive—a reduction in design cycles from years to months, the democratization of chip design, and the automation of tedious register-transfer level (RTL) coding.

Yet, lurking beneath this productivity revolution is a systemic risk that threatens to undermine the foundations of the fabless semiconductor model. It is a risk quantified not in compile errors or lint warnings, but in silicon respins.

Veriprajna was founded on a singular, incontrovertible premise derived from a painful reality: In hardware design, syntax is not semantics, and plausibility is not correctness.

This whitepaper articulates the Veriprajna methodology, a radical departure from the standard "LLM-as-Assistant" paradigm. We present an enterprise-grade framework that fuses the creative generativity of Large Language Models with the mathematical rigor of Formal Verification. We position this not merely as a productivity tool, but as a risk mitigation engine essential for the survival of fabless semiconductor companies in the angstrom era.

1.1 The Anatomy of a $10 Million Mistake

The genesis of Veriprajna lies in a specific, catastrophic failure highlighted by our founder—a $10 million silicon respin caused by a single race condition. This was not a failure of imagination; it was a failure of verification coverage.

In the incident described, a highly competent design team utilized advanced LLM-assisted workflows to accelerate the development of a custom RISC-V accelerator. The model, trained on vast repositories of open-source hardware code, generated a seemingly perfect arbitration module for a high-speed memory interface. The code simulated cleanly. It passed standard regression tests. It linted without error. The design was taped out.

Six months later, when the first silicon arrived from the foundry, the chip deadlocked. Under a specific, rare alignment of thermal throttling and high-bandwidth traffic, the arbiter entered an undefined state. The root cause was a subtle race condition—a "simulation-resistant" bug where the distinction between blocking and non-blocking assignments created a mismatch between the RTL simulation model and the synthesized netlist. ¹

The cost was absolute. The mask set for the 5nm process node, valued at approximately $10 million, was rendered useless. ³ But the true cost was the opportunity cost . The six-month delay required to diagnose, fix, and re-fabricate the chip meant missing the critical market window for the device integration. In the hyper-competitive landscape of AI accelerators, where product generations last only 18 months, a six-month slip equates to a loss of 30-50% of lifetime revenue. ⁴

1.2 The Wrapper Delusion

The industry’s current response to the demand for AI in EDA has been the proliferation of "Wrapper" solutions. These tools essentially wrap standard LLMs (like GPT-4, Llama 3, or Claude) in a chat interface, inject some Verilog-specific system prompts, and present them as "Chip Design Copilots". ¹

Veriprajna rejects this model. We contend that LLMs are fundamentally stochastic token predictors . They do not "understand" circuit topology, timing closure, or metastability. They predict the next likely token based on statistical correlations found in their training data. When applied to software, a "hallucination" results in a runtime error that can be patched over-the-air. When applied to hardware, a hallucination results in a bricked chip that cannot be patched.

The solution is not better prompting. It is Neuro-Symbolic AI —a hybrid architecture that combines the generative power of neural networks with the absolute proof capabilities of formal methods. This document details how Veriprajna implements this architecture to ensure that the $10 million mistake never happens again.

2. The Economic Thermodynamics of Moore's Law

To understand why Veriprajna’s Deep AI approach is necessary, one must first confront the brutal economics of modern semiconductor design. The cost of failure is not linear; it is exponential.

2.1 The "Rule of Ten" in Verification Economics

The industry operates under a harsh heuristic known as the "Rule of Ten." The cost to identify and rectify a defect increases by an order of magnitude at each subsequent stage of the design lifecycle. ⁵

Design Stage	Detection Method	Cost to Fix	Risk Profli e
RTL Design	Designer Inspection / Linting	~$100	Negligible. A typo is fxed in minutes.
Block Verifcation	Unit Simulation / Directed Tests	~$1,000	Low. Requires testbench modifcation and re-run.
System Verifcation	Full-Chip Emulation / Regression	~$10,000	Moderate. Consumes expensive emulator time and engineer days.
Post-Silicon (Lab)	Validation Boards / Logic Analyzers	~$10,000,000+	Catastrophic. Requires respin (new masks).
In the Field	Customer Return / Recall	~$100,000,000+	Existential. Brand damage, lawsuits, total recall (e.g., FDIV bug).

Table 1: The Escalating Cost of Hardware Bugs ⁶

Standard "Wrapper" AI solutions operate primarily at the RTL Design stage, helping engineers write code faster. However, because they lack rigorous verification capabilities, they often introduce subtle bugs that bypass Block and System Verification, only to manifest in Post-Silicon or Field stages. By increasing the velocity of code generation without increasing the rigor of verification, these tools effectively accelerate the injection of high-cost defects into the pipeline.

Veriprajna shifts the verification burden left. By integrating Formal Verification directly into the generation loop, we force the discovery of deep logic bugs at the $100 stage, preventing them from maturing into $10 million liabilities.

2.2 The Mask Cost Barrier

The physical reality of "sunk costs" in silicon is the primary differentiator between software and hardware economics. At mature nodes (like 28nm), a mask set might cost $2-3 million. However, as the industry moves toward 5nm, 3nm, and high-NA EUV processes, mask set costs have skyrocketed to between $10 million and $20 million. ⁸

This capital intensity creates a culture of extreme risk aversion. "First-time-right" silicon is not just a slogan; it is a financial imperative. Data from industry surveys indicates that only 32% of designs achieve first-silicon success. ⁸ The remaining 68% require at least one respin. The primary cause of these respins is logic and functional flaws—exactly the kind of errors that LLMs are prone to generating when they hallucinate interface protocols or misunderstand concurrency. ⁹

2.3 The Opportunity Cost of Time

Beyond the direct cash outlay for masks, the cost of delay is often the true killer of semiconductor startups.

●​ Market Windows: Consumer electronics, automotive, and AI hardware operate on strict annual or semi-annual cycles. Missing a window means missing a design win that lasts for the lifetime of a platform (3-5 years).

●​ The Respin Penalty: A respin typically adds 3 to 6 months to the schedule. This includes time for root cause analysis (debugging the silicon in the lab), RTL fixing, re-verification, re-synthesis, place-and-route, timing closure, and finally, re-fabrication and packaging. ⁴

●​ Revenue Impact: A 6-month delay can erode 50% of a product's total lifetime gross profit. For a company targeting a $100M revenue stream, a respin is a $50M loss, far exceeding the $10M mask cost. ¹⁰

Veriprajna positions itself as an insurance policy against this delay. We trade computational intensity (running formal solvers during design) for schedule certainty.

3. The Linguistic Gap: Why LLMs Hallucinate Hardware

If LLMs are capable of passing the Bar Exam and writing Python web servers, why do they fail so spectacularly at designing reliable chips? The answer lies in the fundamental linguistic divergence between software and hardware description languages (HDLs).

3.1 The Sequential vs. Concurrent Paradox

Standard LLMs (GPT-4, Claude, Llama) are trained on datasets dominated by software languages like Python, Java, and C++. These languages are imperative and sequential : Line A executes, then Line B executes. The state of the system is defined by the sequence of operations.

Verilog and VHDL are declarative and concurrent . In a hardware module, every always block, every assign statement, and every module instantiation executes simultaneously and continuously. The order of lines in the source code often has no bearing on the order of execution in the silicon. ¹¹

The LLM Failure Mode: LLMs suffer from "Sequential Bias." They tend to write Verilog as if it were C code. They frequently misuse Blocking Assignments (=) where Non-Blocking Assignments (<=) are required.

●​ Software Thinking: a = b; b = a; swaps variables.

●​ Hardware Reality: In a clocked always block, a = b; b = a; using blocking assignments creates a race condition . Depending on the simulator's internal scheduling, b might be assigned the new value of a rather than the old value, resulting in a and b becoming equal rather than swapped.

This distinction is subtle syntactically but catastrophic physically. A "Wrapper" AI sees valid syntax and approves it. Veriprajna’s formal engine detects the race condition immediately. ¹²

3.2 The Hallucination of Protocols

Hardware design relies heavily on strict protocols (AXI, AHB, PCIe, TileLink). These protocols have complex temporal rules (e.g., "Ready must not wait for Valid," or "Grant must be asserted within 5 cycles").

LLMs simulate "understanding" via statistical probability. They might generate an AXI master that looks correct 90% of the time but fails in a corner case—for instance, asserting WVALID (Write Valid) before AWREADY (Address Write Ready) in a way that violates a specific sub-clause of the AMBA specification. This is not a syntax error; it is a functional hallucination . The code compiles, but the chip will hang when connected to a compliant memory controller. ¹⁴

3.3 The Training Data Scarcity

The volume of high-quality, open-source Verilog code available for training is orders of magnitude smaller than that of Python or JavaScript code. ¹ Much of the available Verilog on GitHub consists of student projects, abandoned prototypes, or "toy" implementations that do not adhere to industrial coding standards or timing constraints.

●​ Recursive Degradation: Using commercial LLMs to generate synthetic training data can introduce biases and hallucinations into the training set, leading to "model collapse" where the AI reinforces its own errors. ¹¹

●​ Lack of Physical Context: Standard training data includes the RTL but rarely the associated constraints (SDC files), synthesis logs, or formal verification testbenches. The LLM sees the code but not the intent or the physical constraints (timing, area, power). ¹

4. The Race Condition: A Technical Autopsy

To understand the magnitude of the problem Veriprajna solves, one must look closely at the "Race Condition," the arch-nemesis of the digital designer. This section deconstructs the mechanisms of race conditions to illustrate why they are invisible to standard LLMs but obvious to Formal Verification.

4.1 The Simulation-Synthesis Mismatch

One of the most insidious forms of bugs is the Simulation-Synthesis Mismatch. This occurs when the RTL code simulates one way (masking the bug) but synthesizes into logic gates that behave differently. ¹⁶

Consider a simple pipeline register update:

Verilog

always @(posedge clk) begin
stage2 = stage1; // Blocking assignment
stage3 = stage2; // Blocking assignment
end

In this snippet, because blocking assignments (=) are used, stage2 is updated immediately with stage1's value. Then, stage3 is updated with the new value of stage2. Effectively, data moves from stage1 to stage3 in a single clock cycle.

However, the designer likely intended a pipeline where data takes two cycles to move. If the synthesis tool or a different simulator optimizes the execution order differently (or if the code is spread across multiple blocks), the behavior becomes non-deterministic. The LLM, trained on software where variables update immediately, favors this syntax. The resulting hardware fails timing closure or functions incorrectly at speed. ¹⁷

4.2 Pipeline Hazards in RISC-V

In the context of RISC-V processors, which Veriprajna specializes in, race conditions often manifest as pipeline hazards. ¹⁸ A 5-stage pipeline (Fetch, Decode, Execute, Memory,

Writeback) requires complex "forwarding" logic to pass data from later stages back to earlier stages to avoid stalls.

The $10M Scenario: Imagine an LLM generates the forwarding logic for the ALU. It correctly forwards data from the Memory stage to the Execute stage for simple arithmetic. However, it fails to handle a specific corner case:

●​ Instruction Sequence: A LOAD instruction (which has latency) followed immediately by a dependent ADD instruction, occurring simultaneously with an external interrupt.

●​ The Bug: The logic fails to stall the pipeline correctly because the "stall" signal and the "forward" signal race against each other. The ADD instruction picks up "stale" data from the register file before the LOAD has written back the new data. ¹⁴

●​ The Result: The processor computes 2 + 2 = random_value. This bug is "simulation resistant" because standard testbenches rarely inject an interrupt exactly at the nanosecond a LOAD-ADD dependency occurs.

4.3 Physical Errors: CDC and Metastability

Beyond logic, there are physical race conditions known as Clock Domain Crossing (CDC) errors. When a signal travels from a fast clock domain (e.g., a 2GHz CPU) to a slow clock domain (e.g., a 400MHz Peripheral), it must be synchronized.

●​ Metastability: If the signal changes value exactly when the receiving clock rises, the receiving flip-flop can enter a "metastable" state—neither 0 nor 1—for an indefinite period. This can propagate through the chip like a virus, causing system-wide corruption. ¹

●​ The LLM Blind Spot: LLMs see signal names (cpu_data, peri_data). They do not see clock domains. They frequently connect these signals directly, omitting the required double-flop synchronizers or FIFO bridges. A simulation without detailed timing models will pass. The silicon will fail.

5. The Renaissance of Formal Verification: The Engine of Truth

To bridge the gap between AI hallucination and hardware reality, Veriprajna leverages Formal Verification . While LLMs operate in the domain of probability, Formal Verification operates in the domain of proof .

5.1 From Simulation to Proof

Traditional verification relies on Simulation (Dynamic Verification). This is equivalent to testing a car's brakes by driving it around the block 1,000 times. If the brakes don't fail, you assume they are safe. But what if they only fail when it's raining, the car is going 60mph, and the radio is on? Simulation can only verify the scenarios it explicitly tests. ¹⁹

Formal Verification (Static Verification) does not "run" the design. It converts the design into a mathematical formula. It is equivalent to using physics and structural engineering to calculate the stress limits of the brake pads. It proves that under no possible condition will the brakes fail.

5.2 The Mechanics of SMT Solvers

At the heart of Veriprajna’s engine are Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solvers, such as Microsoft's Z3 or CVC5. ²⁰

1.​ Bit-Blasting: The solver converts the high-level Verilog (integers, arrays, vectors) into a massive boolean formula (SAT instance) representing every logic gate and flip-flop in the design.

2.​ Constraint Solving: The solver accepts a "Property" (an assertion of correct behavior) and attempts to find a "Counter-Example."

○​ Property: assert(!(req == 1 && grant == 0) );

○​ Solver Query: "Find a state where req == 1 AND grant == 0."

3.​ Exhaustive Search: The solver uses advanced algebraic heuristics to search the entire state space—all $2^{N}$ possible combinations of inputs and internal states.

4.​ The Verdict:

○​ UNSAT (Unsatisfiable): The solver proves that no bug exists. The design is mathematically perfect with respect to that property.

○​ SAT (Satisfiable): The solver finds a specific sequence of inputs that breaks the design. This sequence is returned as a Counter-Example Trace .

5.3 SystemVerilog Assertions (SVA)

The language of formal verification is SVA. These assertions act as the "contract" for the hardware. ²³

Table 2: Common SVA Constructs Used by Veriprajna

SVA Construct	Meaning	Usage in Verifci ation
$rose(signal)	Signal transitioned from 0 to 1	Detecting start of transactions.
$stable(signal)	Signal value has not changed	Ensuring data validity during hold times.
`	->` (Implication)	If Lef is true, check Right

throughout	Condition holds for duration	reset throughout (active == 0)
$past(signal, N)	Value of signal N cycles ago	Checking pipeline latency correctness.

Writing these assertions is notoriously difficult for humans, which is why Formal Verification has historically been a niche discipline. Veriprajna’s breakthrough is using AI to write the assertions, and Formal tools to check the AI's code. ²⁵

6. Veriprajna’s Methodology: The Neuro-Symbolic "Formal Sandwich"

Veriprajna is not a "Copilot." We are a Neuro-Symbolic Validation Engine . We utilize a proprietary workflow known as the "Formal Sandwich" to ensure Correctness-by-Construction. ²⁶

6.1 Architecture Overview

Our platform fuses two distinct AI paradigms:

1.​ The Neural Layer (The Creative): An LLM fine-tuned on Verilog and SystemVerilog. It handles the "What" (interpreting human intent) and generates the initial RTL and Assertions.

2.​ The Symbolic Layer (The Critic): An SMT solver (Formal Verification engine) that handles the "How" (proving correctness). It acts as an unyielding judge of the Neural layer's output. ²⁷

6.2 Step-by-Step Workflow

Step 1: Multimodal Intent Extraction

The user provides a specification. This can be text ("Design an APB-to-AXI bridge") or multimodal inputs like images of timing diagrams or screenshots of datasheets. ²⁹

●​ Action: The Spec Analyzer Agent decomposes the request into functional requirements (Interface definition, Timing constraints, Reset behavior).

Step 2: Dual-Path Generation (The Generator)

Instead of generating just code, the LLM is prompted to generate two mutually reinforcing artifacts:

●​ Artifact A: The RTL Implementation. (The Verilog code).

●​ Artifact B: The Formal Specification. (A set of SVA properties derived from the requirements).

○​ Example: If the spec says "Grant must follow Request," the LLM generates the Verilog FSM and the SVA: property p_grant; @(posedge clk) req |-> ##[1:$] gnt; endproperty.

Step 3: The Symbolic Judge (The Adversary)

Veriprajna spins up a formal verification instance (using engines like JasperGold or open-source equivalents wrapped in our Symbiosis layer). It attempts to prove Artifact A against Artifact B. ³⁰

●​ Vacuity Check: The solver first checks if the assertions are "vacuously true" (e.g., if req never goes high, the assertion passes trivially). This catches "lazy" AI generation. ³¹

●​ Bounded Model Checking (BMC): The solver explores deep state spaces (e.g., 50-100 cycles deep) to find deadlocks or race conditions.

Step 4: Counter-Example Guided Refinement (The Fixer)

If the solver finds a bug (SAT), it produces a waveform trace showing exactly how the bug manifests.

●​ The Innovation: We do not just show this trace to the user. We feed the mathematical counter-example back into the LLM as a prompt. ²⁶

●​ Prompt: "Your design failed. Here is the trace: Cycle 1: Reset=0. Cycle 2: Req=1. Cycle 10: Grant=0. The grant never arrived. Fix the state machine."

●​ The LLM analyzes the trace, identifies the logic flaw (e.g., a missing state transition), and rewrites the code.

This loop repeats automatically until the design is proven correct (UNSAT).

6.3 Addressing the "State Space Explosion"

Formal verification can be computationally expensive. Veriprajna mitigates this using automated abstraction techniques ³² :

●​ Black-Boxing: We verify the glue logic while treating large sub-blocks (like RAMs or complex ALUs) as black boxes.

●​ Cut-Points: We break valid/ready paths to verify flow control independently of data processing.

●​ Symmetry Reduction: We prove the property for one channel of a router and mathematically induce it for all N channels.

7. Case Study: RISC-V and the Open Source

Battleground

To demonstrate the efficacy of the Veriprajna methodology, we examine its application to RISC-V processor design—a domain rife with complexity and open-source bugs.

7.1 The "Ibex" and "PULP" Bugs

The open-source RISC-V community has produced excellent cores like Ibex (used in OpenTitan) and the PULP platform. However, even these heavily scrutinized designs contain bugs that only Formal Verification can find.

●​ The Debug Unit Deadlock: Formal verification by Axiomise revealed a bug in the Ibex core where a debug request arriving at a specific cycle during a branch instruction could cause the core to deadlock or execute the wrong instruction. ³³

●​ The AXI Starvation: In the PULP platform, a bug was found where the AXI interconnect could starve a master indefinitely if AWVALID and AWREADY interacted in a specific "busy" pattern. This was a classic liveness failure. ¹⁴

7.2 Veriprajna in Action

When Veriprajna is tasked with generating a RISC-V Load-Store Unit (LSU), it automatically generates assertions for:

●​ Interface Compliance: "If valid is asserted, it must remain high until ready is received" (AXI4 requirement).

●​ Data Integrity: "Data read from address X must match the last data written to address X" (Scoreboarding).

●​ Forward Progress: "The LSU must eventually return a response to the core" (Liveness).

By enforcing these properties during generation, Veriprajna produces cores that are robust against the corner cases that plague manual designs. We don't just rely on open-source IP; we verify it.

8. Strategic Roadmap: From Copilot to Autopilot

Veriprajna is pioneering the transition from "Computer Aided Design" (CAD) to "Computer Automated Design" .

8.1 Agentic AI for EDA

We are moving beyond single-prompt interactions to Agentic Workflows . ³⁵ In the Veriprajna ecosystem, autonomous agents collaborate:

●​ Agent A: The Architect (High-level floorplanning and partitioning).

●​ Agent B: The RTL Coder (Detailed implementation).

●​ Agent C: The Verification Engineer (Writing UVM testbenches and SVA).

●​ Agent D: The Manager (Orchestrating the flow and checking against power/area constraints).

These agents communicate via a shared context, iteratively refining the design until it meets all PPA (Power, Performance, Area) and functional goals.

8.2 RAG for Hardware Knowledge

We employ Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) not just for code, but for knowledge . ³⁶ Our database includes:

●​ Standard Interface Protocols (AXI, AHB, APB, PCIe).

●​ Process Design Kits (PDKs) rules for 7nm/5nm nodes.

●​ Internal corporate knowledge bases (previous bug reports, design guidelines).

When the LLM generates code, it retrieves the specific "Rule 34" of the corporate coding standard regarding reset polarity, ensuring compliance without hallucination.

8.3 The Path to Zero-Bug Silicon

Our ultimate goal is Zero-Bug Silicon . By integrating Formal Verification into the generative loop, we reduce the bug escape rate to near zero for the logic covered by assertions. While analog physics will always present challenges, the logic bugs—the race conditions, the deadlocks, the protocol violations—become mathematically impossible in the generated code.

9. Conclusion: The Veriprajna Promise

The semiconductor industry can no longer afford the "try and see" approach to verification. The "Rule of Ten" dictates that a bug found in the lab costs 10,000 times more than a bug found in the editor. The $10 million mistake cited by our founder is not an anomaly; it is the inevitable statistical result of applying probabilistic tools (LLMs) to deterministic problems (Hardware) without a safety net.

Veriprajna is that safety net. We are not a wrapper. We are not a chatbot. We are a Formal Verification Foundry . We offer the only generative AI solution that respects the unforgiving physics of silicon. We provide the speed of AI with the certainty of Math.

For the modern chip designer, the choice is clear: You can use a chatbot and hope for the best. Or you can use Veriprajna and prove it.

Veriprajna Deep AI. Formal Proof. Zero Respins.

Works cited

1. Large Language Model for Verilog Code Generation: Literature Review and the Road Ahead - Preprints.org, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202511.0656/v2

2. Former AMD engineer, my first build with an AMD chip that I worked on! - Reddit, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/jyi8c6/former_amd_engineer_my_first_build_with_an_amd/

3. How to Maximize Productivity and Lower Cost for Enterprise Prototyping Cadence Blogs, accessed December 11, 2025, https://community.cadence.com/cadence_blogs_8/b/fv/posts/how-to-maximize-productivity-and-lower-cost-for-enterprise-prototyping

4. A Winning Formula - Semiconductor Engineering, accessed December 11, 2025, https://semiengineering.com/a-winning-formula/

5. Formal Analysis: A Valuable Tool for Post-Silicon Debug | Electronic Design, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.electronicdesign.com/news/products/article/21789371/formal-analysis-a-valuable-tool-for-post-silicon-debug

6. The Cost of Finding Bugs Later in the SDLC - Functionize, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.functionize.com/blog/the-cost-of-finding-bugs-later-in-the-sdlc

7. Automated Regression Testing | The True Cost of Software Bugs in 2025 | CloudQA, accessed December 11, 2025, https://cloudqa.io/how-much-do-software-bugs-cost-2025-report/

8. Rising respins and need for re-evaluation of chip design strategies - EDN Network, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.edn.com/rising-respins-and-need-for-reavaluation-of-chip-design-strategies/

9. Verification In Crisis - Semiconductor Engineering, accessed December 11, 2025, https://semiengineering.com/verification-in-crisis/

10. The Risk/Reward Realities of Chip Development - Embedded, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.embedded.com/the-risk-reward-realities-of-chip-development/

11. Large Language Model for Verilog Generation with Code-Structure-Guided Reinforcement Learning - arXiv, accessed December 11, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2407.18271v3

12. Race Conditions: The Root of All Verilog Evil - StittHub, accessed December 11, 2025, https://stitt-hub.com/race-conditions-the-root-of-all-verilog-evil/

13. How to avoid a race condition - SystemVerilog - Verification Academy, accessed December 11, 2025, https://verificationacademy.com/forums/t/how-to-avoid-a-race-condition/39103

14. Corner-Case Bug Hunting for RISC-V - Semiconductor Engineering, accessed December 11, 2025, https://semiengineering.com/corner-case-bug-hunting-for-risc-v/

15. Slow Progress On Generative EDA - Semiconductor Engineering, accessed December 11, 2025, https://semiengineering.com/slow-progress-on-generative-eda/

16. Detecting Harmful Race Conditions in SystemC Models Using Formal Techniques - DVCon Proceedings, accessed December 11, 2025, https://dvcon-proceedings.org/wp-content/uploads/detecting-harmful-race-conditions-in-systemc-models-using-formal-techniques.pdf

17. Verilog Races | VLSI Design Interview Questions With Answers - Ebook, accessed December 11, 2025, https://vlsiinterviewquestions.org/2012/07/27/verilog-races/

18. Please help me with a 5 stage Pipeline : r/RISCV - Reddit, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/RISCV/comments/1iny04h/please_help_me_with_a_5_stage_pipeline/

19. From Simulation Bottlenecks to Formal Confidence: Leveraging Formal for Exhaustive RISC-V Verification, accessed December 11, 2025, https://riscv.org/blog/from-simulation-bottlenecks-to-formal-confidence-leveraging-formal-for-exhaustive-risc-v-verification/

20. Satisfiability modulo theories - Wikipedia, accessed December 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfiability_modulo_theories

21. Z3 - Microsoft Research, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/z3-3/

22. Lessons Learned With the Z3 SAT/SMT Solver - Applied Mathematics Consulting, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2025/03/17/lessons-learned-with-the-z3-sat-smt-solver/

23. SystemVerilog assertions for formal verification - Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange, accessed December 11, 2025, https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/737399/systemverilog-assertions-for-formal-verification

24. Assertion-based Verification - GitHub Pages, accessed December 11, 2025, https://uobdv.github.io/Design-Verification/Lectures/Current/9_ABV.v.pdf

25. LAAG-RV: LLM Assisted Assertion Generation for RTL Design Verification - arXiv, accessed December 11, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2409.15281v1

26. Faver: Boosting LLM-based RTL Generation with Function Abstracted Verifiable Middleware, accessed December 11, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2510.08664v1

27. Revolution or Hype? Seeking the Limits of Large Models in Hardware Design arXiv, accessed December 11, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2509.04905v1

28. A Roadmap towards Neurosymbolic Approaches in AI Design - IEEE Xplore, accessed December 11, 2025, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel8/6287639/6514899/11192262.pdf

29. SANGAM: SystemVerilog Assertion Generation via Monte Carlo Tree Self-Refine arXiv, accessed December 11, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2506.13983v1

30. achieve-lab/assertion_data_for_LLM - GitHub, accessed December 11, 2025, https://github.com/achieve-lab/assertion_data_for_LLM

31. 1 The Traditional Req/Ack Handshake, It's More Complicated Than You Think! Ben Cohen 9/1/2024, accessed December 11, 2025, https://systemverilog.us/vf/ReqAck90224.pdf

32. Formal And AI Hybrid Techniques For Scalable Verification Of Large System-On-Chips - jicrcr, accessed December 11, 2025, http://jicrcr.com/index.php/jicrcr/article/download/3429/2917/7352

33. RISC-V Formal Verification - Axiomise, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.axiomise.com/risc-v-formal-verification/

34. Verifying security of RISC-V processors - Embedded, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.embedded.com/verifying-security-of-risc-v-processors/

35. Thinklab-SJTU/Awesome-LLM4EDA - GitHub, accessed December 11, 2025, https://github.com/Thinklab-SJTU/Awesome-LLM4EDA

36. Understanding and Mitigating Errors of LLM-Generated RTL Code - alphaXiv, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.alphaxiv.org/overview/2508.05266v1