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.
arXiv:2607. 01590v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Developing high-performance kernels for Neural Processing Units (NPUs) is a critical industry bottleneck, requiring developers to manually navigate implicit hardware constraints and strict memory hierarchies.
arXiv:2604.16625v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent large language model (LLM) agents have shown promise in using execution feedback for test-time adaptation. However, robust self-improv...
arXiv:2608. 14863v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based coding agents have advanced rapidly on single-process SWE tasks, with frontier models now clustering in the high-70s on SWE-bench Verified.
arXiv:2609.24165v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Synchrotron data reduction, detector calibration followed by azimuthal integration of terabyte-scale diffraction series, is a multi-step, expert-bound...
arXiv:2607. 16632v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hardware engineering exposes coding agents to a form of long-horizon work that is difficult to capture with pass-at-k: progress is continuous, tool feedback is delayed and heterogeneous, and a backend failure may require revising RTL rather than tuning another physical-design parameter.
arXiv:2608. 14635v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly trained with reinforcement learning in long-horizon, sandboxed environments.
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.
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) handle bug fixing versus problem solving in competitive programming. Using a dataset of ~3,000 Codeforces submissions and their human fixes, the authors compare LLM-generated patches to human patches and assess whether LLMs prefer to modify buggy code or generate new solutions. Results show that LLMs often alter more lines than necessary and sometimes produce entirely new solutions, performing better when allowed to generate solutions from scratch rather than patching existing code.
arXiv:2607. 12605v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have improved automated program repair (APR), but two limitations remain.
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:2603. 20075v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Compilers are critical to modern computing, yet fixing compiler bugs is difficult.
The paper investigates how Large Language Models (LLMs) handle bug fixing compared to human-written patches by analyzing about 3,000 Codeforces submissions. It finds that LLMs often modify more lines than necessary and sometimes produce entirely new solutions, and that they solve more problems correctly when generating solutions from scratch rather than patching existing code. The study highlights implications for AI‑assisted programming tools, suggesting a shift toward incremental problem‑solving strategies.