Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper investigates the use of compiler optimization remarks as feedback for AI coding agents that automatically optimize code. It finds that ambiguous compiler remarks lead to semantic-breaking hallucinations in these agents, while precise remarks are significantly more effective. By replacing ambiguous remarks with precise ones, the authors demonstrate improved performance in smaller models, suggesting the compiler interface is a key bottleneck.
Legacy compiler feedback, designed for humans, is actively sabotaging AI coding agents, causing them to hallucinate and break code.
Modern AI agents optimize programs by refactoring source code to trigger trusted compiler transformations. This preserves program semantics and reduces source code pollution, making the program easier to maintain and portable across architectures. However, this collaborative workflow is limited by legacy compiler interfaces, which obscure analysis behind unstructured, lossy optimization remarks that have been designed for human intuition rather than machine logic. Using the TSVC benchmark, we evaluate the efficacy of existing optimization feedback. We find that while precise remarks provide actionable feedback (3.3x success rate), ambiguous remarks are actively detrimental, triggering semantic-breaking hallucinations. By replacing ambiguous remarks with precise ones, we show that structured, precise analysis information unlocks the capabilities of small models, proving that the bottleneck is the interface, not the agent. We conclude that future compilers must expose structured, actionable feedback designed specifically for the future of autonomous performance engineering.