# Automated Generation of Microfluidic Netlists using Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.19297 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.19297/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Feb 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [CodeGen: An Open Large Language Model for Code with Multi-Turn Program Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.13474/) (2022)
- [VerilogEval: Evaluating Large Language Models for Verilog Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07544/) (2023)
- [RTLLM: An Open-Source Benchmark for Design RTL Generation with Large Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.05345/) (2023)
- [Chip-Chat: Challenges and Opportunities in Conversational Hardware Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13243/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking Large Language Models for Automated Verilog RTL Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.11140/) (2022)
- [DAVE: Deriving Automatically Verilog from English](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01026/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Microfluidic devices have emerged as powerful tools in various laboratory applications, but the complexity of their design limits accessibility for many practitioners. While progress has been made in microfluidic design automation (MFDA), a practical and intuitive solution is still needed to connect microfluidic practitioners with MFDA techniques. This work introduces the first practical application of large language models (LLMs) in this context, providing a preliminary demonstration. Building on prior research in hardware description language (HDL) code generation with LLMs, we propose an initial methodology to convert natural language microfluidic device specifications into system-level structural Verilog netlists. We demonstrate the feasibility of our approach by generating structural netlists for practical benchmarks representative of typical microfluidic designs with correct functional flow and an average syntactical accuracy of 88%.