mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Surprisal-Guided Selection: Compute-Optimal Test-Time Strategies for Execution-Grounded Code Generation

arXiv 2602.07670 ↗First posted 7 Feb 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Test-time training (TTT) adapts language models through gradient-based updates at inference. But is adaptation the right strategy? We study compute-optimal test-time strategies for verifiable execution-grounded (VEG) tasks, domains like GPU kernel optimization where a deterministic evaluator provides dense, continuous reward signals. Using KernelBench as our testbed and a 120B-parameter model (GPT-OSS-120B with LoRA adaptation), we find that search outperforms minimal adaptation (1-5 gradient steps): Best-of-N sampling achieves 90% task success (18/20 tasks) at K=64 across the full KernelBench L1 eval set while TTT's best checkpoint reaches only 30.6% (3-seed mean), with TTT's "equivalent K" falling below 1, worse than single-sample inference. The failure mode is over-sharpening: gradient updates collapse diversity toward mediocre solutions rather than discovering optimal ones. Our main contribution is surprisal-guided selection: selecting the highest-surprisal (lowest-confidence) correct sample yields 80% success vs. 50% for most-confident selection, a 30% improvement. Extending to surprisal-guided-top3 matches oracle performance at 100%. This zero-cost strategy, validated through length-controlled analysis, recovers oracle performance. For dense-reward VEG tasks, compute should be allocated to sample diversity and intelligent selection rather than gradient adaptation. The surprisal-guided selection principle may generalize to other execution-grounded domains where optimal solutions occupy the distribution tail.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Feb 2026.

Builds on

21 of 23 references.

References · 21

  1. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
  2. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  3. 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,928
  4. 2026Reinforcement Learning via Self-Distillationcited by 285
  5. 2025KernelBench: Can LLMs Write Efficient GPU Kernels?cited by 206
  6. 2025S*: Test Time Scaling for Code Generationcited by 95
  7. 2026Learning to Discover at Test Timecited by 94
  8. 2025The Art of Scaling Reinforcement Learning Compute for LLMscited by 91
  9. 2025Kevin: Multi-Turn RL for Generating CUDA Kernelscited by 73
  10. 2025Agent RL Scaling Law: Agent RL with Spontaneous Code Execution for Mathematical Problem Solvingcited by 62
  11. 2025CUDA-L1: Improving CUDA Optimization via Contrastive Reinforcement Learningcited by 59
  12. 2025From Word to World: Can Large Language Models be Implicit Text-based World Models?cited by 40
9 more
  1. 2026Scalable Power Sampling: Unlocking Efficient, Training-Free Reasoning for LLMs via Distribution Sharpeningcited by 27
  2. 2025AccelOpt: A Self-Improving LLM Agentic System for AI Accelerator Kernel Optimizationcited by 21
  3. 2026Dr. Kernel: Reinforcement Learning Done Right for Triton Kernel Generationscited by 21
  4. 2026Towards Execution-Grounded Automated AI Researchcited by 19
  5. 2025QiMeng-Kernel: Macro-Thinking Micro-Coding Paradigm for LLM-Based High-Performance GPU Kernel Generationcited by 16
  6. 2025SSRL: Self-Search Reinforcement Learningcited by 13
  7. 2025CUDA-L2: Surpassing cuBLAS Performance for Matrix Multiplication through Reinforcement Learningcited by 13
  8. 2025SuperCoder: Assembly Program Superoptimization with Large Language Modelscited by 5
  9. 2026Magellan: Autonomous Discovery of Novel Compiler Optimization Heuristics with AlphaEvolvecited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.