VeriGen: A Large Language Model for Verilog Code Generation

In this study, we explore the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate hardware design by generating high-quality Verilog code, a common language for designing and modeling digital systems. We fine-tune pre-existing LLMs on Verilog datasets compiled from GitHub and Verilog textbooks. We evaluate the functional correctness of the generated Verilog code using a specially designed test suite, featuring a custom problem set and testing benches. Here, our fine-tuned open-source CodeGen-16B model outperforms the commercial state-of-the-art GPT-3.5-turbo model with a 1.1% overall increase. Upon testing with a more diverse and complex problem set, we find that the fine-tuned model shows competitive performance against state-of-the-art gpt-3.5-turbo, excelling in certain scenarios. Notably, it demonstrates a 41% improvement in generating syntactically correct Verilog code across various problem categories compared to its pre-trained counterpart, highlighting the potential of smaller, in-house LLMs in hardware design automation.

LLM-assisted Generation of Hardware Assertions

The security of computer systems typically relies on a hardware root of trust. As vulnerabilities in hardware can have severe implications on a system, there is a need for techniques to support security verification activities. Assertion-based verification is a popular verification technique that involves capturing design intent in a set of assertions that can be used in formal verification or testing-based checking. However, writing security-centric assertions is a challenging task. In this work, we investigate the use of emerging large language models (LLMs) for code generation in hardware assertion generation for security, where primarily natural language prompts, such as those one would see as code comments in assertion files, are used to produce SystemVerilog assertions. We focus our attention on a popular LLM and characterize its ability to write assertions out of the box, given varying levels of detail in the prompt. We design an evaluation framework that generates a variety of prompts, and we create a benchmark suite comprising real-world hardware designs and corresponding golden reference assertions that we want to generate with the LLM.

StarCoder: may the source be with you!

The BigCode community, an open-scientific collaboration working on the responsible development of Large Language Models for Code (Code LLMs), introduces StarCoder and StarCoderBase: 15.5B parameter models with 8K context length, infilling capabilities and fast large-batch inference enabled by multi-query attention. StarCoderBase is trained on 1 trillion tokens sourced from The Stack, a large collection of permissively licensed GitHub repositories with inspection tools and an opt-out process. We fine-tuned StarCoderBase on 35B Python tokens, resulting in the creation of StarCoder. We perform the most comprehensive evaluation of Code LLMs to date and show that StarCoderBase outperforms every open Code LLM that supports multiple programming languages and matches or outperforms the OpenAI code-cushman-001 model. Furthermore, StarCoder outperforms every model that is fine-tuned on Python, can be prompted to achieve 40\% pass@1 on HumanEval, and still retains its performance on other programming languages. We take several important steps towards a safe open-access model release, including an improved PII redaction pipeline and a novel attribution tracing tool, and make the StarCoder models publicly available under a more commercially viable version of the Open Responsible AI Model license.

Can deepfakes be created by novice users?

Recent advancements in machine learning and computer vision have led to the proliferation of Deepfakes. As technology democratizes over time, there is an increasing fear that novice users can create Deepfakes, to discredit others and undermine public discourse. In this paper, we conduct user studies to understand whether participants with advanced computer skills and varying levels of computer science expertise can create Deepfakes of a person saying a target statement using limited media files. We conduct two studies; in the first study (n = 39) participants try creating a target Deepfake in a constrained time frame using any tool they desire. In the second study (n = 29) participants use pre-specified deep learning-based tools to create the same Deepfake. We find that for the first study, 23.1% of the participants successfully created complete Deepfakes with audio and video, whereas, for the second user study, 58.6% of the participants were successful in stitching target speech to the target video. We further use Deepfake detection software tools as well as human examiner-based analysis, to classify the successfully generated Deepfake outputs as fake, suspicious, or real. The software detector classified 80% of the Deepfakes as fake, whereas the human examiners classified 100% of the videos as fake. We conclude that creating Deepfakes is a simple enough task for a novice user given adequate tools and time; however, the resulting Deepfakes are not sufficiently real-looking and are unable to completely fool detection software as well as human examiners

Beyond the C: Retargetable Decompilation using Neural Machine Translation

The problem of reversing the compilation process, decompilation, is an important tool in reverse engineering of computer software. Recently, researchers have proposed using techniques from neural machine translation to automate the process in decompilation. Although such techniques hold the promise of targeting a wider range of source and assembly languages, to date they have primarily targeted C code. In this paper we argue that existing neural decompilers have achieved higher accuracy at the cost of requiring language-specific domain knowledge such as tokenizers and parsers to build an abstract syntax tree (AST) for the source language, which increases the overhead of supporting new languages. We explore a different tradeoff that, to the extent possible, treats the assembly and source languages as plain text, and show that this allows us to build a decompiler that is easily retargetable to new languages. We evaluate our prototype decompiler, Beyond The C (BTC), on Go, Fortran, OCaml, and C, and examine the impact of parameters such as tokenization and training data selection on the quality of decompilation, finding that it achieves comparable decompilation results to prior work in neural decompilation with significantly less domain knowledge. We will release our training data, trained decompilation models, and code to help encourage future research into language-agnostic decompilation.

Benchmarking Large Language Models for Automated Verilog RTL Code Generation

Automating hardware design could obviate a significant amount of human error from the engineering process and lead to fewer errors. Verilog is a popular hardware description language to model and design digital systems, thus generating Verilog code is a critical first step. Emerging large language models (LLMs) are able to write high-quality code in other programming languages. In this paper, we characterize the ability of LLMs to generate useful Verilog. For this, we fine-tune pre-trained LLMs on Verilog datasets collected from GitHub and Verilog textbooks. We construct an evaluation framework comprising test-benches for functional analysis and a flow to test the syntax of Verilog code generated in response to problems of varying difficulty. Our findings show that across our problem scenarios, the fine-tuning results in LLMs more capable of producing syntactically correct code (25.9% overall). Further, when analyzing functional correctness, a fine-tuned open-source CodeGen LLM can outperform the state-of-the-art commercial Codex LLM (6.5% overall). Training/evaluation scripts and LLM checkpoints are available: https://github.com/shailja-thakur/VGen.

Pop Quiz! Can a Large Language Model Help With Reverse Engineering?

Large language models (such as OpenAI's Codex) have demonstrated impressive zero-shot multi-task capabilities in the software domain, including code explanation. In this work, we examine if this ability can be used to help with reverse engineering. Specifically, we investigate prompting Codex to identify the purpose, capabilities, and important variable names or values from code, even when the code is produced through decompilation. Alongside an examination of the model's responses in answering open-ended questions, we devise a true/false quiz framework to characterize the performance of the language model. We present an extensive quantitative analysis of the measured performance of the language model on a set of program purpose identification and information extraction tasks: of the 136,260 questions we posed, it answered 72,754 correctly. A key takeaway is that while promising, LLMs are not yet ready for zero-shot reverse engineering.

Can OpenAI Codex and Other Large Language Models Help Us Fix Security Bugs?

Human developers can produce code with cybersecurity weaknesses. Can emerging 'smart' code completion tools help repair those weaknesses? In this work, we examine the use of large language models (LLMs) for code (such as OpenAI's Codex and AI21's Jurassic J-1) for zero-shot vulnerability repair. We investigate challenges in the design of prompts that coax LLMs into generating repaired versions of insecure code. This is difficult due to the numerous ways to phrase key information -- both semantically and syntactically -- with natural languages. By performing a large scale study of four commercially available, black-box, "off-the-shelf" LLMs, as well as a locally-trained model, on a mix of synthetic, hand-crafted, and real-world security bug scenarios, our experiments show that LLMs could collectively repair 100% of our synthetically generated and hand-crafted scenarios, as well as 58% of vulnerabilities in a selection of historical bugs in real-world open-source projects.

An Empirical Cybersecurity Evaluation of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributions

There is burgeoning interest in designing AI-based systems to assist humans in designing computing systems, including tools that automatically generate computer code. The most notable of these comes in the form of the first self-described `AI pair programmer', GitHub Copilot, a language model trained over open-source GitHub code. However, code often contains bugs - and so, given the vast quantity of unvetted code that Copilot has processed, it is certain that the language model will have learned from exploitable, buggy code. This raises concerns on the security of Copilot's code contributions. In this work, we systematically investigate the prevalence and conditions that can cause GitHub Copilot to recommend insecure code. To perform this analysis we prompt Copilot to generate code in scenarios relevant to high-risk CWEs (e.g. those from MITRE's "Top 25" list). We explore Copilot's performance on three distinct code generation axes -- examining how it performs given diversity of weaknesses, diversity of prompts, and diversity of domains. In total, we produce 89 different scenarios for Copilot to complete, producing 1,692 programs. Of these, we found approximately 40% to be vulnerable.