---
license: bsd-3-clause
task_categories:
- image-text-to-text
- visual-question-answering
tags:
- eda
- vlsi
- design-rule-checking
- drc
- asap7
- layout
- vlm
size_categories:
- n<1K
---

# VLMDRC — ASAP7 DRC-Understanding Evaluation Dataset

Evaluation crops for **Vision-Language Model design-rule-checking (DRC)** at an
advanced (7nm, ASAP7) node. Each sample is a rendered layout crop labeled with
the **Calibre-signoff DRC violations** it contains (rule name + exact geometry),
for benchmarking whether a VLM can identify *which* design rule is violated,
*where*, and *why*.

Companion code (rendering, eval, metrics, reasoning-trace collection):
**https://github.com/glzhou97/VLM_DRC_ASAP7**

## Source & provenance
- **Layouts:** OpenROAD-flow-scripts **GCD** benchmark routed on the open
  **ASAP7** PDK (`asap7sc7p5t`), plus model-augmented variants.
- **Labels:** Mentor **Calibre** DRC (ASAP7 rule deck) — exact violation
  geometry (edges for spacing, polygons for enclosure/width).
- **Scope:** local interconnect — **M1, M2, V1** (paper representation).
- **License:** ASAP7 is BSD-3-Clause; all layouts are open benchmarks (no
  proprietary foundry data).

## Splits
| Folder | N | Description |
|---|---|---|
| `table2_set/` | 100 | Benchmark: single-violation crops, 10 rules, + `via_count`, `via_centers_um`, measured `geometry_text` |
| `table2_set_dim/` | 100 | Same crops with **measurements drawn on the image** (via sizes, spacing dimension lines) |
| `eval_large/` | 250 | Larger single-violation set (verified Calibre geometry: `edges_um`, `polygon_um`, `region_um`) |
| `eval_large_loc/` | 250 | Same, with the **exact Calibre violation region** marked (localization oracle; no rule name) |
| `real_annotated/` `synthetic_annotated/` | 100 each | Violation-region overlay + layer legend + rule list (human-inspectable) |
| `real/` `synthetic/` | 100 each | Clean crops (real OpenROAD DRVs / model-augmented DRVs) |

## Format
Each split has `images/*.png` + `eval_manifest.json` (list of samples):
```json
{
  "sample_id": "t2_000", "image": "images/t2_000.png",
  "source_gds": "6_final.gds", "crop_origin_um": [x, y], "crop_size_um": 0.256,
  "via_count": 1, "via_centers_um": [[x, y]],
  "violated_rules": ["M1.S.2"],
  "violations": [{"rule": "M1.S.2", "type": "edge",
                  "edges_um": [[x1,y1,x2,y2], ...], "region_um": [x0,y0,x1,y1]}]
}
```
Rules covered (M1/M2/V1): `M1.S.2/4/5/6` (spacing), `V1.W.1` (width),
`V1.S.1` (via spacing), `V1.M1.EN.1` / `V1.M2.EN.2` (enclosure),
`V1.AUX.1` / `V1.M2.AUX.2` (auxiliary enclosure).

Coordinates are micrometers; images have µm axes with a fine grid for reading
geometry. `group` / `group-conditioned-spacing` rule categories from the source
paper are **N/A** for ASAP7 (no group-via rules).

## Baseline results (100-sample benchmark, k=1, rule-ID F1)
| Model | F1 | VIA Loc | Spacing F1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen3-VL-8B (base) | 16.3 | 57.5 | 0% |
| GPT-5.2 | 11.7 | 88.9 | 0% |
| Gemini-3.1-Pro | 13.5 | 66.7 | 0% |

No baseline detects spacing violations from the raw crop — the gap domain
adaptation is meant to close.