arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.25881

Learn the Interface, Not the Implementation: Output Representation Dominates Training Regime in LLM-Based RTL Generation

Siddharth Patel·Vikram Singh·Siddharth Savyasachi Malu·Rohit Singh
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Large-language-model register-transfer-level (RTL) generation has concentrated on how to train the model: fine-tuning, continued pre-training, and reinforcement learning from a verifier. We argue this is the second-order question. On a bounded, formally specifiable task of generating single-error-correcting, double-error-detecting (SECDED) ECC memory wrappers, we hold the task, data, and correctness oracle fixed and vary two axes independently: the training regime (seven settings) and the output representation (four levels, from fully expanded flat Verilog to an eight-field configuration expanded by a deterministic generator). Because a reference generator exists, correctness is decided by formal equivalence over a design space of approximately ten million points, rather than sampled from a hand-written testbench. Two results follow. First, representation dominates: every representation close to raw RTL reaches a pass rate of at most 0.17, while the configuration reaches 0.83 with no training at all. Once the model emits the configuration, every training regime achieves a pass rate between 0.89 and 1.00. Second, raw RTL hits a hard output-length limit: a 512-bit design requires 44,237 tokens of flat Verilog compared with just 69 tokens for the configuration. Consequently, raw generation becomes infeasible above 32-bit data words rather than merely inaccurate. A model trained from scratch with fewer than 50 million parameters, combined with the verified generator, achieves 0.89 formal equivalence, compared with 1.00 for a 32-billion-parameter fine-tuned model, while using approximately 1600 times less inference energy per correct design. Inference energy also dominates amortized training energy. The lesson is to learn the interface, not the implementation.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.AR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Siddharth Patel, Vikram Singh, Siddharth Savyasachi Malu, Rohit Singh. 2026-10-19. Learn the Interface, Not the Implementation: Output Representation Dominates Training Regime in LLM-Based RTL Generation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25881

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Heterogeneous Sheaf Neural Networks

Heterogeneous graphs, whose nodes and edges can belong to different types and feature spaces, arise in many real-world domains, including biology, recommendation, social networks, and computer systems. Existing heterogeneous graph neural networks typically handle this heterogeneity at the architectural level through relation-specific modules, meta-path machinery or type-aware attention, which often leads to increasingly specialised parameter-heavy designs. In this work, we propose HetSheaf, a framework for learning heterogeneous graphs through cellular sheaves. Instead of encoding heterogeneity solely in the architecture, HetSheaf represents it directly in the underlying data structure by assigning type-aware local feature spaces and learning restriction maps conditioned on node features, node types, and edge types. To support graph-level prediction, we further introduce SheafPool, a universal stalk-space readout that aggregates node representations while being invariant to local changes of basis, thereby making graph classification with sheaf networks well-defined and achieving an F1 Score up to 42 percentage points higher than mean pooling. Across a diverse suite of benchmarks (node classification, link prediction and graph classification). HetSheaf consistently achieves up to 2 percentage points higher performance (up to 94.97% Macro F1 Score on node classification and up to 99.62% on link prediction) on the Heterogeneous Graph Benchmark (HGB) framework against homogeneous (GCN, GAT, GIN, GraphSAGE), heterogeneous (R-GCN, HAT, HGT) and type-agnostic sheaf baselines, while reducing the number of parameters by up to 10$\times$.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Risk-averse learning with delayed feedback

In real-world scenarios, risk-averse learning is valuable for mitigating potential adverse outcomes. However, the delayed feedback makes it challenging to assess and manage risk effectively. In this paper, we investigate risk-averse learning using Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) as risk measure, while incorporating feedback with random but bounded delays. We develop two risk-averse learning algorithms that rely on one-point and two-point zeroth-order optimization approaches, respectively. The dynamic regrets of the algorithms are analyzed in terms of the cumulative delay and the number of total samplings. In the absence of delay, the regret bounds match the established bounds of zeroth-order stochastic gradient methods for risk-averse learning. Furthermore, the two-point risk-averse learning outperforms the one-point algorithm by achieving a smaller regret bound. We provide numerical experiments on a dynamic pricing problem to demonstrate the performance of the algorithms.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

On the Value of Cross-Modal Misalignment in Multimodal Representation Learning

Multimodal representation learning, exemplified by multimodal contrastive learning (MMCL) using image-text pairs, aims to learn powerful representations by aligning cues across modalities. This approach relies on the core assumption that the exemplar image-text pairs constitute two representations of an identical concept. However, recent research has revealed that real-world datasets often exhibit \emph{cross-modal misalignment}. There are two distinct viewpoints on how to address this issue: one suggests mitigating the misalignment, and the other leveraging it. We seek here to reconcile these seemingly opposing perspectives and to provide a practical guide for practitioners. Using latent variable models, we thus formalize cross-modal misalignment by introducing two specific mechanisms: \emph{selection bias}, where some semantic variables are absent in the text, and \emph{perturbation bias}, where semantic variables are altered---both leading to misalignment in data pairs. Our theoretical analysis shows that, under suitable assumptions, population global minimizers of an alignment--entropy surrogate yield representations that depend only on the semantic variables unaffected by selection and perturbation biases and locally identify this subset almost surely. Extensive empirical studies on synthetic data and real image-text datasets further examine how cross-modal misalignment shapes semantic predictability and downstream performance, shedding light on its nuanced impact on multimodal representation learning.

cs.LG↗