The development of large language models (LLMs) are capable to assist with hardware experiments. In this scenario, this raises a practical question: Can LLMs determine whether a proposed operation is safe for a specific development board? Documented operating limits and safety requirements are board-specific, even across products from the same manufacturer. This variation makes board-specific safety judgments by an LLM difficult to evaluate. To address this problem, we introduce the BoardSafety Benchmark. The benchmark is built from vendor datasheets and hardware guides. For data transformation, these documents are converted into a board-specific safety rule base and are then used to create labeled operating scenarios. Each data item pairs a board and a proposed operation to an applicable safety rule with ground-truth label, indicating the level of safety. The categorized level for each operation includes safe, unsafe, or insufficient-info. In addition, the benchmark covers diverse operations, board-specific cases, boundary conditions, and missing-information cases. We evaluate a series of models by varying their access to board-specific rules and the use of structured-rationale prompting. Our results demonstrate that providing the safety rules generally improves accuracy, whereas structured-rationale prompting produces gains that vary across models and rule-access conditions. Overall, the evaluated models cannot yet reliably determine whether an operation is safe, which implies that critical exploration is required for this field.

翻译：暂无翻译