Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a domain-specific debugging agent designed to repair near-miss hardware operators, which are often discarded despite embodying valuable domain knowledge. By shifting focus from regeneration to debugging, the authors demonstrate that this approach significantly improves the success rate of kernel generation while drastically reducing resource consumption. The proposed method achieves a Debug Pass@1 rate of 66.7%, compared to 25.9% for traditional regeneration methods, highlighting its effectiveness in recovering viable operators that would otherwise be overlooked.
Debugging near-miss hardware operators can yield a 66.7% success rate, outperforming traditional regeneration methods by a staggering margin.
Kernel generation for hardware accelerators such as GPUs and NPUs has become a proving ground for large language models (LLMs), and state-of-the-art systems raise correctness through pipelines that couple LLMs with agentic reinforcement learning and evolutionary search. Such pipelines generate, compile, and execute large numbers of candidate kernels, discarding most of them and forgoing the opportunity to distill failures into reusable knowledge. Many discarded candidates are near-miss operators that compile and run but fail numerical validation; each embodies genuine domain knowledge and a nontrivial investment in LLM inference, cross-compilation, and hardware execution. We argue for a paradigm shift: rather than regenerate, debug. Debugging is far more constrained than generating from scratch: the search space is small and feedback is dense. We present a domain-specific debug agent that addresses three core challenges in autonomous repair: mitigating knowledge scarcity through retrieved patterns and diagnostic instrumentation, ensuring integrity through anti-cheat detection and full-coverage evaluation, and controlling cost via convergence guards and bounded iteration. Debugging serves two complementary roles: it extends the capability frontier by recovering operators that repeated regeneration fails to produce, and it lowers cost per deliverable operator. Debug Pass@1 achieves 66.7% versus Regenerate Avg Pass@1's 25.9% and Regenerate Pass@3's 40.7%, while consuming 92.8% fewer tokens per success than three-trial regeneration. Component ablations show that the knowledge base drives recovery, while integrity gates reject 12.5-33.3% of the successes the workflow itself accepted.
