SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

WengFai Wong

Publications and source records attributed to WengFai Wong.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

HLS-Seek: QoR-Aware Code Generation for High-Level Synthesis via Proxy Comparative Reward Reinforcement Learning

High-Level Synthesis (HLS) compiles algorithmic C/C++ descriptions into hardware, with Quality of Results (QoR)---latency and resource utilization---critically governed by pragma configurations and code structure. Existing natural-language-to-HLS (NL-to-HLS) training approaches prioritize functional correctness while largely ignoring QoR. We observe that reinforcement learning (RL) for HLS does not require absolute synthesis results---only relative comparisons between candidates. Based on this insight, we propose \textbf{HLS-Seek}, a QoR-aware NL-to-HLS framework that avoids full synthesis-in-the-loop RL via a comparative proxy reward model achieving 99.53\% Pareto-dominance accuracy. To prevent reward hacking, we introduce \textit{uncertainty-aware Monte Carlo (MC) dropout switching} that selectively invokes real Vitis HLS synthesis for low-confidence candidates and online updates the proxy, creating a self-improving reward system. HLS-Seek achieves 84.7\% syntax correctness pass@1 and 81.4\% functional correctness pass@5 on HLS-Eval~\cite{abikaram2025hlseval} with only 7B parameters, surpassing GPT-5.1 on functional pass@5, while achieving 8.5$\times$ faster training than real-reward RL. On QoR evaluation, HLS-Seek achieves the lowest latency on 19/30 kernels and Pareto-dominates HLS-specific baselines on 9 kernels.

cs.LG

Is Agentic AI Ready for Real-World Hardware Engineering? A Deep Dive with Phoenix-bench

We ask whether agentic AI systems built for software engineering transfer to realistic hardware engineering. Existing hardware LLM benchmarks isolate sub-tasks but none jointly requires repository navigation, hierarchy-aware localization, Electronic Design Automation (EDA) executable verification, and maintenance-style patching. We introduce \textbf{Phoenix-bench}, a synchronized corpus of 511 verified Verilator instances from 114 GitHub repositories, each shipped with the developer patch, design-flow labels, fail-to-pass and pass-to-pass testbenches, and a Docker-pinned EDA environment so resolved-rate differences reflect agent behavior rather than toolchain availability. Using Phoenix-bench we run a uniform evaluation of four commercial agents and eight open-source agentic structures across four LLM backbones, plus two diagnostic interventions (file-level oracle localization and one round of testbench-log feedback). Three findings emerge. (i)~Software and hardware are fundamentally different engineering tasks: the same agent loses 37\% to 58\% from SWE-bench Verified to Phoenix-bench because hardware bugs propagate across parallel instantiated modules through signal flow rather than along a software-style call graph, and software-tuned agents stop at the symptom file instead of tracing back through the instantiation chain. (ii)~Failures concentrate on design control-flow / finite state machine (FSM) bugs, verification testbench bugs, and hard cases that demand cross-hierarchy signal-flow tracking and coordinated multi-file edits. (iii)~Localization granularity matters far more than localization itself: a perfect file-level oracle yields only $+1.4$\% because the agent then breaks files that did not need editing, while a single round of test case feedback lifts resolved rate by $42$\% to $45$\% because the test case tells \emph{where} the bug is and \emph{what} the fix has to look like.

cs.AR