When the Next Step Is Not One Step: Distribution-Aware Execution Modeling for Concurrent Go Programs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Training a model to predict the next step in a concurrent program is harder than it looks: two runs of the same program from the same trace prefix can produce different next events, both valid, because the scheduler is nondeterministic. A model trained against a single label is learning to guess one outcome of a random process. We turn this around and use the nondeterminism as a training signal. We run each program many times, aggregate the observed next events into an empirical distribution, and fine-tune a 7B model to match that distribution with a KL objective. On 798 held-out predictions drawn from real production Go bugs (CockroachDB, Kubernetes, gRPC, etcd), fine-tuning on fewer than a thousand traces reaches 36.2% accuracy, ahead of Gemini 3.5 Flash used zero-shot (34.8%) and the same model without fine-tuning (28.6%). Distribution training matches cross-entropy on accuracy (35.8% vs. 36.2%) while reducing Expected Calibration Error from 0.205 to 0.169. We also derive a formal goroutine-leak signature for a class of select-blocked goroutines where P(GoUnblock)=0 holds by scheduler semantics, not by learning. We release the dataset, trained adapters, and all tooling.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 9 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Jun 2026.
Builds on
5 of 9 references.
References · 5
- 2025CWM: An Open-Weights LLM for Research on Code Generation with World Modelscited by 87
- 2024Forcing Diffuse Distributions out of Language Modelscited by 48
- 2026Debugging code world modelscited by 4
- 2026CONCUR: Benchmarking LLMs for Concurrent Code Generationcited by 2
- 2026Probabilistic Calibration Is a Trainable Capability in Language Modelscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.