Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China · School of Integrated Circuits, Southeast University, Nanjing, China · National Center of Technology Innovation for EDA, Nanjing, China
Physical design quality-of-results~(QoR) optimization is hard and expensive. Choices made at one stage can help or hurt later stages. Each evaluation requires a costly EDA run through the full flow. While existing methods still treat optimization as flat parameter tuning or a LLM-based script generation task, we present AgenticPD, a stage-aware agentic framework for physical design QoR optimization. Instead of re-running the full flow after every trial, AgenticPD is organized around the stage boundaries of the physical design flow, where a Judge Agent navigates the search and stage-specialized agents make local decisions within their own stage using stage-local tools. Additionally, the agent harness in AgenticPD provides structured observations, execution history, and agent context management. As a result, the system can branch from prior intermediate states and reuse checkpoints to continue the optimization procedure, and every candidate is evaluated at the post-route signoff. Across these baselines, AgenticPD achieves strong post-route timing while remaining competitive in power and area.
Large language model (LLM) agents are extending electronic design automation (EDA) beyond static RTL generation toward long-horizon, tool-interactive workflows. Yet it remains unclear whether general-purpose coding agents, even with domain-specific EDA skills, can reliably execute an end-to-end RTL-to-GDS flow encompassing synthesis, physical implementation, and engineering change order (ECO) optimization. We evaluate AI agents on a PicoRV32 RTL-to-GDS flow using commercial EDA tools under two timing targets. Their performance is assessed using end-to-end design score, stage completion, and Token ROI, a cost-efficiency metric relating design quality to runtime and cost. Comparing three agent architectures and four foundation models, we derive three practical lessons. First, domain-specific skills improve agents' understanding of individual subtasks but do not ensure reliable completion of a long-horizon EDA flow. Second, agents that achieve similar design progress can still differ by up to 141 times in Token ROI, revealing substantial differences in runtime and cost efficiency. Third, low-level tool-interface mismatches are a major source of physical design failures, particularly when Tcl commands depend on the tool version or execution mode. These results suggest that robust Agentic EDA requires not only stronger models but also structured tool interfaces, persistent design context, controlled execution, and process-level evaluation.
LLM-based agents are increasingly applied to the "last mile" of Electronic Design Automation (EDA): repairing residual sign-off Design Rule Check (DRC) violations and converging Power-Performance-Area (PPA) targets after tool runs. Existing EDA-LLM benchmarks, however, omit DRC fixing entirely and rely on flat hierarchies tied to a single toolchain. We introduce PostEDA-Bench, a hierarchical benchmark with 145 tasks across DRC-Essential, DRC-Reasoning, PPA-Mono, and PPA-Multi, supported by EDA toolchains with machine-checkable evaluation. Across eight commercial and open-source LLMs under multiple agent scaffolds, we find that agents handle synthetic DRC-Essential and single-objective PPA-Mono reasonably well but degrade sharply on the more practical DRC-Reasoning, where the best success rate is 36.66%, and PPA-Multi, where the best success rate is 20.00%; vision augmentation consistently enhances DRC-Bench; and trade-off reasoning, rather than knob knowledge, is the dominant PPA-Multi bottleneck.
Traditional design of analog circuits heavily relies on manual interventions across topology, sizing, and layout, with prior automation addressing stages in isolation. In this work, we propose PANDA, an LLM-enhanced framework that bridges high-level design intent to final layout by actively managing cross-stage dependencies through guided topology synthesis, substructure-aware sizing, and constraint-driven layout generation. This shifts automation from algorithm-centric execution to intent-centric co-design, reducing turnaround time from days or weeks to hours while improving design performance.