NoTB: Oracle-Free Triage of LLM-Generated RTL via Cross-Model Formal Consensus

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate register-transfer-level (RTL) designs from natural-language specifications. However, assessing functional correctness at early stages remains a fundamental challenge. Existing oracle-free approaches rely either on simulation-based agreement, which depends on LLM-generated testbenches that can fail or vary across models, or on LLM-as-a-judge heuristics, which produce inconsistent predictions. We introduce NoTB, an oracle-free triage framework that infers correctness from cross-model formal consensus. NoTB generates RTL implementations from multiple independently trained LLM families and applies Sequential Equivalence Checking (SEC) to identify designs that are provably equivalent. We show that the diversity of model families within an SEC-equivalent cluster induces a calibrated correctness signal, enabling risk-coverage tradeoffs without requiring testbenches. On 78 CVDP RTL-generation tasks, four-family formal consensus achieves 94.7% precision at 27% coverage; three-family consensus achieves 87% precision at 33% coverage. These operating points give designers a tunable accept/defer rule before a trusted testbench or golden RTL is available. Overall, NoTB demonstrates that formal cross-model agreement provides a reliable basis for high-confidence triage without model-dependent oracles

Self-prompting and cross-model consensus enable reproducible data extraction from scientific literature with large language models

Accurately extracting nuanced, contextualized data from research articles is laborious and time intensive. Here, we investigate the performance of frontier, browser-based large language models (LLMs) to extract highly contextualized information. We demonstrate four escalating workflows, 1) given an expert curated prompt and research articles, most frontier LLMs perform well at data extraction, however can struggle with interpreting scientific context and nuance, 2) given simple instructions, LLMs can author their own prompts which were almost as eNective as expert-written prompts, 3) autonomous discovery of research literature was diNicult, agents either missed or hallucinated references, and 4) LLMs can create new datasets from published guidelines that closely match human-expert judges, but still require a human-in-the-loop. Together, these findings define an auditable division of labour in which experts specify the evidence standard, models cross-check repeated extractions and researchers resolve disputed cases, providing a practical route to scaling scientific data curation without relinquishing expert oversight.