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