CUDABeaver: Benchmarking LLM-Based Automated CUDA Debugging
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Debugging CUDA programs has long been challenging because failures often arise from subtle interactions among hardware behavior, compiler decisions, memory hierarchy, and asynchronous execution. More importantly, with the rapid expansion of GPU usage across scientific computing, machine learning, graphics, and systems workloads, CUDA debugging has become more challenging than ever. Current evaluations of LLM-based CUDA programming largely miss this setting: a model can pass correctness tests with repair by degeneration, simplifying the CUDA code into a safer but slower program that abandons the original optimization structure. We introduce CUDABEAVER, a benchmark for CUDA debugging from real failing workspaces produced during LLM-based CUDA generation. Each task provides the broken candidate, native build/test commands, raw error evidence, and a single editable file. CUDABEAVER evaluates whether a fixer truly repairs the failing CUDA code or merely finds a slower test-passing replacement, reporting results by failure category, debugging trajectory, stagnation mode, and performance preservation. We further propose pass@k(M,C,A), a protocol-conditional CUDA debugging metric by making the fixer M, corpus C, and protocol axes Aexplicit. Using this metric across 213 tasks and seven frontier LLMs, we show that protocol-aware evaluation gives a more faithful view of CUDA debugging ability: when performance-loss tolerance is high, fixers appear much stronger, but even a minor stricter performance requirement can sharply reduce measured success, shifting scores by up to 40 percentage points.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 May 2026.
Builds on
21 of 33 references.
References · 21
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
- 2023FlashAttention-2: Faster Attention with Better Parallelism and Work Partitioningcited by 2,551
- 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 778
- 2023State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluationcited by 299
- 2025KernelBench: Can LLMs Write Efficient GPU Kernels?cited by 206
- 2023Is Self-Repair a Silver Bullet for Code Generation?cited by 191
- 2024When Benchmarks are Targets: Revealing the Sensitivity of Large Language Model Leaderboardscited by 134
- 2025Kevin: Multi-Turn RL for Generating CUDA Kernelscited by 73
- 2025TritonBench: Benchmarking Large Language Model Capabilities for Generating Triton Operatorscited by 68
9 more
- 2025CudaForge: An Agent Framework with Hardware Feedback for CUDA Kernel Optimizationcited by 42
- 2024PerfCodeGen: Improving Performance of LLM Generated Code with Execution Feedbackcited by 22
- 2026Dr. Kernel: Reinforcement Learning Done Right for Triton Kernel Generationscited by 21
- 2026AVO: Agentic Variation Operators for Autonomous Evolutionary Searchcited by 19
- 2025Don't Pass@k: A Bayesian Framework for Large Language Model Evaluationcited by 15
- 2026CUDABench: Benchmarking LLMs for Text-to-CUDA Generationcited by 10
- 2026StitchCUDA: An Automated Multi-Agents End-to-End GPU Programing Framework with Rubric-based Agentic Reinforcement Learningcited by 7
- 2019Characterizing and Detecting CUDA Program Bugscited by 1
- 2026Hunting CUDA Bugs at Scale with cuFuzzcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.