CUDABeaver: Benchmarking LLM-Based Automated CUDA Debugging

Fuente: arXiv
Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Li, Shiyang, Chen, Haoyang, Fazzini, Mattia, Ding, Caiwen
Format: Preprint
Published: 2026
Subjects:
Online Access:
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1866917532813754368
author Li, Shiyang
Chen, Haoyang
Fazzini, Mattia
Ding, Caiwen
author_facet Li, Shiyang
Chen, Haoyang
Fazzini, Mattia
Ding, Caiwen
contents 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.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_08455
institution arXiv
publishDate 2026
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle CUDABeaver: Benchmarking LLM-Based Automated CUDA Debugging
Li, Shiyang
Chen, Haoyang
Fazzini, Mattia
Ding, Caiwen
Machine Learning
Programming Languages
Software Engineering
D.2.5; I.2.6; D.1.3
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.
title CUDABeaver: Benchmarking LLM-Based Automated CUDA Debugging
topic Machine Learning
Programming Languages
Software Engineering
D.2.5; I.2.6; D.1.3
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.08455