The paper introduces mutation analysis as a metric for evaluating GPU‑kernel benchmark oracles, injecting over ten thousand faults into verified CUDA implementations of 188 KernelBench problems. It shows that the current official checkers miss 16.9% of faults, with precision faults being especially problematic, and demonstrates that optimized test suites can achieve 98% detection with only two inputs per problem. The study also reveals flaws in existing patches and a fuzzing recipe that incorrectly rejects correct kernels 107 times.
arXiv:2606. 20128v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmarks for LLM-generated GPU kernels (KernelBench, TritonBench, GEAK) score correctness through fixed-shape, small-sample allclose-style checks.
arXiv:2608. 12700v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Systems that generate GPU kernels with language models report high correctness rates.
The paper examines how large‑language‑model (LLM) decompilers, which produce clean, idiomatic C code, are currently evaluated mainly on recompilability and passing shipped tests. It shows that these metrics can mask significant behavioral differences: a decompiled function may recompile and pass all tests yet diverge on other inputs or lose disclosed vulnerabilities. To address this, the authors propose Decompile‑Diverge, a behavioral oracle that synthesizes drivers, fuzzes inputs, and compares the decompiled code’s behavior to the original, revealing divergences in up to 13% of cases and exposing gaps in current evaluation suites.
arXiv:2606. 27396v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Test-input generation for tensor kernels is folkloric.
arXiv:2609.23889v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated kernel vulnerability reproduction is essential for bug triage, patch validation, and regression testing, but still lacks an effective and...
arXiv:2605. 26548v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Finding a real vulnerability in complicated systems is a challenging, long-horizon task that demands reasoning across an entire codebase to produce a working proof-of-concept (PoC).
The paper evaluates the effectiveness of tolerance‑based conformance tests for INT8 quantized GEMM kernels used in large language models. By injecting nine faults into a Qwen3‑1.7B reference pipeline, the authors show that most faults shift outputs by at most one bfloat16 spacing, rendering a tolerance of one spacing blind to these errors. They further demonstrate that requantizing weight scales to the nearest power of two aligns CUTLASS and Triton implementations bit‑for‑bit and produces identical token sequences, with only minor perplexity changes.
arXiv:2504. 20412v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Fuzzing frameworks like syzkaller have uncovered thousands of Linux kernel crashes, many of which are critical and security-sensitive.
arXiv:2608. 02712v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Kernel generation for hardware accelerators such as GPUs and NPUs has become a proving ground for large language models (LLMs), and state-of-the-art systems raise correctness through pipelines that couple LLMs with agentic reinforcement learning and evolutionary search.
FuzzingBrain‑Bench V1 is a new benchmark that tests large language models (LLMs) on their ability to discover software bugs in open‑source projects. Unlike prior benchmarks that focus on a single target vulnerability, this benchmark gives models a Docker‑based harness and asks them to generate inputs that trigger as many distinct crashes as possible. The first version contains 77 challenges from 43 projects (36 C, 32 C++, 9 Java/JVM) and evaluates Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Claude Opus 4.8, with Claude Opus 4.8 achieving the highest score by triggering crashes in 60 of 77 challenges.
arXiv:2609.35841v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mutation testing evaluates test-suite adequacy by injecting synthetic faults into program code. However, traditional rule-based tools often generate...
AutoTuneBench introduces a trustworthy measurement protocol for evaluating how large language model agents auto‑tune GPU kernels and serving engines. The benchmark addresses four failure modes—strawman baselines, machine‑dependent timing, saturated tasks, and infrastructure defects—by enforcing code‑frozen protocols, database validation, anti‑cheat checks, pre‑registered comparisons, and external result anchoring. Using this protocol, the authors demonstrate that previously reported speedups are inflated, revealing more modest improvements across different engines and machines.