Project Info

CryoBrain

Devpost

This project did not submit a demo video on Devpost.

Inspiration

Quantum computers need fast, reliable error correction to become useful. A big part of that problem is the decoder: the hardware/software path that turns noisy syndrome measurements into corrections before errors compound. We built CryoBrain because most AI-for-hardware demos stop at generated code or proxy scores. We wanted a system where agents could propose hardware improvements, test them against real verification and measurement tools, learn from research, and leave behind artifacts that judges can actually inspect. What It Does CryoBrain runs a multi-agent refinement loop for quantum-decoder hardware. Each iteration proposes decoder/FIFO design changes, measures them through a real toolchain, records verification artifacts, and archives the evidence. The reward is grounded in measured behavior rather than a mock demo: [ reward \approx f(\text{logical error suppression}, \text{latency}, \text{area}, \text{validity}) ] The project includes: A measured RL/refinement loop 50 archived sponsor-backed training iterations Verifiable artifacts for each iteration Offline demo dashboard Memory A/B tracking with honest parity reporting Pareto frontier views for hardware tradeoffs Sponsor integrations for research, model generation, remote measurement, and eval proof How We Built It We built the project as a Python-based hardware-design training environment. The core loop runs agents that propose, generate, verify, measure, score, and archive hardware variants. The system uses real hardware tooling where possible: Verilator for simulation, Yosys for synthesis-style metrics, Stim for quantum-error simulation, and Python orchestration for the RL loop. We also integrated sponsor platforms: Exa for research context, Fireworks for proposal generation, Modal for remote measurement, and HUD for evaluation gating. For the final proof run, we executed 50 sponsor-backed refinement iterations and archived each cycle under artifacts/marathon_runs/cycle_###, with a summary validator confirming the artifacts are present and measurable. Challenges We Faced The hardest part was keeping the evidence honest. It is easy to make an AI system look like it is improving if the reward is synthetic or if artifacts are overwritten. We had to build checks that preserved every iteration and verified that the data was real. We also had to fix claim discipline around memory. The memory A/B evidence showed parity, not an advantage, so we changed the demo and validators to avoid claiming memory improved the run unless the endpoint delta is strictly positive. Another challenge was making the project submission-clean: removing local developer paths, avoiding committed secrets, keeping sponsor evidence verifiable, and ensuring the dashboard only presents measured artifacts. What We Learned We learned that AI agents can be useful for hardware design only when their outputs are tied to real verification. The interesting part is not just generating RTL; it is closing the loop between research, candidate generation, simulation, scoring, and auditability. We also learned that honest negative or neutral results matter. Memory parity is still useful evidence because it prevents overclaiming and makes future improvement measurable. What's Next Next, we want to push beyond parity into real memory-driven improvement, expand the decoder search space, add stronger formal verification, and run longer training loops with richer research ingestion.

Analysis

Compare with all teams

View

Metric

Figures cover GitHub contributors during the hackathon window. A co-authored commit counts in full for each author, so per-member totals add up to more than the whole-team figures.

Technology

Found in codeClaimed only
  • HTMLIn code
  • OpenAIIn code
  • PythonIn code
  • ReactIn code
  • TypeScriptIn code
  • CSSClaimed
  • JavaScriptClaimed

5 of 7 appear in the indexed code. 2 claimed on Devpost could not be matched to code, which may simply mean the tool leaves no trace in the repository.

AI coding agents

No AI coding agent signals were found in this repository.

Detected from committed agent config files and commit authorship. Absence of a signal is not proof an agent was unused.

Codebase size

Source size

5.4 MB

Source files

528

Counts recognized source files only; vendored directories, binaries and lockfiles are excluded, so this is smaller than the repository on disk.

0 stars