mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Kernel Contracts: A Specification Language for ML Kernel Correctness Across Heterogeneous Silicon

arXiv 2604.22032 ↗First posted 23 Apr 2026cs.LG cs.PLcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Every ML kernel ships with an implicit contract about what it computes. People rarely write the contract down. When two kernels disagree -- when a matmul on AMD produces a different gradient than the same matmul on NVIDIA, when a fused attention kernel silently downcasts an accumulator, when an out-of-bounds access returns zero on one stack and garbage on another -- there is no formal artifact to arbitrate the dispute. Recent empirical work has measured the gap across silicon platforms, but none of it specifies the contract being violated. We present a specification language for kernel contracts. A contract has eight parts: identifier, scope, precondition, postcondition, tolerance, reference oracle, measurement protocol, and violation signature. We use it to state twelve contract classes covering precision, ordering, compiler-induced, and exceptional-value failure modes, each grounded in published empirical evidence. We require a three-state calibration: every contract must admit at least one reference-conforming implementation and at least one contract-violating implementation that passes basic functional tests. We apply the framework to three documented incidents -- Huawei Ascend silent precision coercion, Sakana AI CUDA Engineer reward hacking, AMD out-of-bounds silent acceptance -- and show that each informal diagnosis maps to a specific contract violation with a measurable signature. A kernel contract suite is a normative reference against which conformance can be graded, in the way that ISASecure grades industrial control systems against IEC 62443.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Apr 2026.

Builds on

11 of 40 references.

References · 11

  1. 2024FlashAttention-3: Fast and Accurate Attention with Asynchrony and Low-precisioncited by 507
  2. 2025Towards Robust Agentic CUDA Kernel Benchmarking, Verification, and Optimizationcited by 52
  3. 2025Understanding and Mitigating Numerical Sources of Nondeterminism in LLM Inferencecited by 47
  4. 2025MultiKernelBench: A Multi-Platform Benchmark for Kernel Generationcited by 35
  5. 2024Impacts of floating-point non-associativity on reproducibility for HPC and deep learning applicationscited by 24
  6. 2025Understanding Silent Data Corruption in LLM Trainingcited by 13
  7. 2025Equivalence Checking of ML GPU Kernelscited by 7
  8. 2024Testing GPU Numerics: Finding Numerical Differences Between NVIDIA and AMD GPUscited by 4
  9. 2024Exo 2: Growing a Scheduling Languagecited by 3
  10. 2026DASH: Deterministic Attention Scheduling for High-throughput Reproducible LLM Trainingcited by 3
  11. 2026Reward Hacking as Equilibrium under Finite Evaluationcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026FastKernels: Benchmarking GPU Kernel Generation in Production
  2. 2026KernelBench-Verified: Do LLM-Generated Kernels Actually Beat PyTorch?
  3. 2026KernelGenBench: Can LLMs and Agents Write Efficient Kernels Across Operator Sources and Hardware Platforms?
  4. 2026Are LLM-Generated GPU Kernels Production-Ready? A Trace-Driven Benchmark and Optimization Agent
  5. 2026KernelCraft: Benchmarking for Agentic Close-to-Metal Kernel Generation on Emerging Hardware
  6. 2025ProofWright: Towards Agentic Formal Verification of CUDA
  7. 2026Improving Efficiency of GPU Kernel Optimization Agents using a Domain-Specific Language and Speed-of-Light Guidance
  8. 2026Spec Sheets Are Not Kernels: An ISA- and Source-Level Audit of INT8 Availability on NVIDIA Blackwell Ultra