Sign inGet started
Paper · arXiv

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

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 10...

AuthorsVenkata Krishna Kumar Vedantam
Primary categorycs.AR
Published15 October 2026
Last updated at source15 October 2026
cs.ARcs.AIcs.SE
Embed this entry
<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/cc81dd95-80fa-482e-aba7-ce47b82b04af" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Free, no tracking. More about feeds and embeds.

Popularity, last 3 days

0 now. Counts as reported by the source, snapshotted daily by Silytics.

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 18 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.