Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper explores the capability of large language models (LLMs) to generate latency-aware hardware designs for financial computing, focusing on FPGA design where latency is critical for competitive advantage. Through the FinHardBench benchmark, which encompasses 33 financial computing tasks, the authors conduct experiments simulating the FPGA iteration cycle, revealing that while LLMs achieve functional correctness rates between 19-61%, they exhibit significant timing degradation. Notably, LLMs outperform traditional optimization methods in system-level design space exploration, although they struggle with adapting to strategy-level specification changes, indicating a nuanced relationship between code generation and architectural optimization.
LLMs can generate hardware designs that are functionally correct but often lag in timing performance, revealing a complex trade-off in financial FPGA design.
Can large language models generate not just correct, but fast hardware? This paper investigates the question in financial FPGA design, where 5-10 nanoseconds of latency determines competitive advantage and designs iterate continuously as protocols, strategies, and regulations evolve. FinHardBench, a benchmark of 33 financial computing tasks, is presented together with three experiments that mirror the real-world FPGA iteration cycle: generating new modules from specifications, tuning system-level configurations across a 6-stage trading pipeline, and adapting existing modules to specification changes. Evaluation of six LLMs on 1530+ experiment rounds yields three findings: (1) models achieve 19-61% functional correctness with timing degradation up to 13.7$\times$ on specific tasks; (2) in system-level design space exploration, top LLMs converge to the optimal configuration with higher reliability than random search, simulated annealing, and Bayesian optimization baselines (5/5 seeds vs. 0-4/5 at the same 24-round budget); (3) strategy-level specification changes remain unsolved for most models. Across the six models, generation and DSE rankings overlap moderately: the strongest code generator is not the fastest architecture optimizer, and the weakest code generator (MiniMax M2.7) still reaches the system optimum on 4 of 5 seeds. On the tasks in FinHardBench, difficulty tracks training data pattern availability more closely than abstraction level. FinHardBench is released as an open-source benchmark.
