CUDA-Harness: Harnessing Agentic CUDA Kernel Generation and Optimization from Natural Language

Developing high-performance CUDA kernels demands specialized knowledge in algorithm implementation, correctness validation, and hardware-aware parallel optimization, creating a substantial expertise barrier and making generating CUDA kernels directly from natural language (Text2CUDA) essential. Meanwhile, the general-purpose code generation capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) prompts a series of works exploring LLM-based CUDA kernel generation. They mainly focus on transpilation from high-level frameworks such as PyTorch to CUDA (Torch2CUDA) rather than Text2CUDA, where models must understand the high-level input semantics and handle low-level kernel implementation and validation. Additionally, these methods are vulnerable to reward hacking due to reliance on predefined test inputs. In this paper, we propose CUDA-Harness, a framework for harnessing agentic CUDA kernel generation and optimization from natural language. Specifically, we introduce Intermediate-Structured Generation to connect high-level semantic understanding with low-level kernel generation. To dilute reward hacking in Text2CUDA, we construct Synthesis-Based Verification to provide isolated test data and progressive validation. Furthermore, we propose Feedback-Adaptive Evolution, a kernel evolution strategy that prioritizes correctness while optimizing performance. Finally, through extensive experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness of CUDA-Harness, with further evaluations illustrating generalization across LLMs, hardware platforms, and to C-to-CUDA transpilation.

T-LLM Compiler: Trusted LLM-based Code Optimization and Verification Framework

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have opened opportunities to apply high-level code transformations to the field of code optimization, and it has since emerged as one of the most fundamental tasks for LLMs to perform; however, at present, LLMs struggle to apply wide-ranging code optimization tasks due to both the complexity of the code and the inability to independently verify the correctness of the transformations. In this paper, we present the Trusted LLM (T-LLM) Compiler, which proposes an advancement in compiler technology through a collaborative effort involving high-level LLM code transformations, traditional compilers, and verification tools. Experimental results reveal that it can significantly improve code correctness when tested on a set of PolyBench/C benchmarks. Our approach facilitates iterative code optimization efforts with verification strategies that enable corrective actions. Through this approach, T-LLM Compiler achieves code optimization accuracy of up to 83.3% and a speedup of up to 16.1\% on the PolyBench/C benchmarks, with the transformed code reaching an average of 26.7% speedup wrt standard baselines. Additionally, we release the project's source code to the open-source community.

Route-Align-Verify for Functional Correctness in Code Generation

Large language models (LLMs) have substantially improved code generation, yet achieving strong functional correctness remains difficult, especially for heterogeneous programming tasks where a single prompting strategy and a single directly generated output are often insufficient. In this paper, we present RAV, a lightweight and modular framework that improves code generation with a fixed backbone model through three coordinated stages: Route, which applies task-aware prompt routing before generation; Align, which reduces the mismatch between fine-tuning prompts and inference-time prompts through aligned LoRA adaptation; and Verify, which selects the final output by executing multiple candidates against visible public tests. We evaluate RAV on the MBPP benchmark under both the sanitized and full settings. The complete RAV pipeline achieves the best performance among all evaluated configurations, reaching 0.8911 on MBPP Sanitized and 0.8520 on MBPP Full. Compared with the base model, these results represent improvements of 6.35 and 9.92 percentage points, respectively. Component-wise ablation experiments further show that task-aware routing and aligned adaptation become substantially more effective when combined with execution-based verification. Additional robustness and contamination analyses support the reliability of the observed improvements. Overall, the results indicate that functional correctness in code generation can be meaningfully improved without modifying the backbone architecture, by jointly optimizing how tasks are prompted, how the model is adapted, and how final outputs are selected.

When Uncertainty Isn't Enough: An Empirical Study of Self-Correction in Code Generation

Large language models for code generation often produce incorrect solutions without reliable indicators of failure. We study whether uncertainty estimation methods developed for natural language transfer to code generation, and whether such signals can improve code generation via selective self-correction. We evaluate five uncertainty methods: mean token entropy, verbalized confidence, $P(\text{True})$, entropy ensembles, and semantic entropy probes, across three small code LLMs on HumanEval and BigCodeBench. We find that multi-sample $P(\text{True})$ achieves the strongest correlation with correctness, while all the other methods, including semantic entropy probes, yield only weak correlation. We then use these uncertainty signals to drive three self-correction policies: adaptive decoding, uncertainty-based regeneration, and verification-based regeneration. Our results reveal a stronger negative finding than anticipated: uncertainty-based self-correction fails to reliably improve Pass@1, degrading accuracy in 5 of 6 configurations across both benchmarks ($-3$pp to $-10$pp), and adaptive decoding degrades accuracy in 4 of 6 configurations. Only verification-based self-correction reliably improves Pass@1, with gains of $+6$ to $+26$ percentage points on HumanEval and $+8$ to $+20$ percentage points on BigCodeBench, scaling inversely with baseline strength. These findings replicate consistently across both benchmarks and suggest that cheap uncertainty estimators are insufficient on their own to improve code correctness, and that their practical value lies in serving as gating signals for costlier execution-based correction loops rather than as standalone substitutes for verification.

Looping Is Not Reliability: State-Bound Evidence and Typed Revision Contracts for Agentic Code Repair

Generate--test--revise loops are common in coding agents, but repetition alone provides no reliability guarantee. We study the gap between finding a correct patch and retaining, verifying, and submitting it. A sealed five-seed study over 30 HumanEval repairs produces 900 three-revision trajectories. Under forced revision, current correctness with current traces falls from 0.820 after one revision to 0.673 after two, although ever-correct rises to 0.847. Two common-state studies use 2,430 branches from identical frozen programs to remove post-treatment risk-set bias. In a prespecified 14B replication, stale traces harm 34/135 correct starts versus 4/135 with current traces, a 22.2-point increase (task-cluster 95\% CI $[8.9,37.0]$, exact Holm $p=0.0337$). A prospective 540-rollout policy eliminates observed correct-start harm but reduces wrong-start repair and fails its joint criterion. Repository experiments over 24 bugs and four coder stacks expose floor effects and component heterogeneity without Holm-significant effects. We therefore separate admission, preservation, grounded certification, competence, and liveness. We derive an evidence-bound typed loop contract and instantiate its mechanically enforceable subset in a reference implementation that binds verifier evidence to exact code states, preserves verified checkpoints, and emits auditable admission receipts. The implementation is an executable specification and conformance artifact, not evidence of improved repair competence or calibrated verifier dependence.

Falsification-Based Verification of LLM-Generated Optimization Models: Sound Test Batteries and Their Detection Limits

Large language models now translate natural-language descriptions of decision problems into solver-ready optimization models, and they fail silently. A generated model often runs and still encodes the wrong problem, while standard evaluation compares optimal values against labeled answers that deployment does not provide. How to certify such a model without any reference is the question this paper addresses. We develop falsification-based verification. Every numeric quantity in a problem description plays a role that the text itself states, such as a capacity, a requirement, or a unit cost, and any correct model must respond to changes in these quantities as the stated roles dictate. From duality and sensitivity analysis we derive a battery of solver-based tests that are individually sound, so a violation certifies a faulty model and the false-positive rate is zero by design. We characterize the errors that no test of this kind can see, give conditions under which each canonical error class is detected with certainty, and prove that perturbation testers with tuned thresholds cannot be simultaneously sound and nontrivial. Across 326 ground-truth models, a synthetic family, and four public benchmarks with two generators, the battery flags 0.0% of faithful models while a threshold tester flags 54.9%; it detects 56.1% of core formulation errors, 70.0% under certified preconditions, and 40.4% of the errors that value-based scoring provably cannot see, and it reproduces the predicted detectability pattern including its blind spots. Every flag carries a machine-checkable certificate that localizes the defect, and a full audit costs about 25 millisecond-scale solver calls per model. Classical sensitivity analysis and duality thus offer a rigorous, label-free audit that complements existing evaluation of AI-generated optimization models.

Teaching Code LLMs to Reason with Intermediate Formal Specifications

Unlike natural-language specifications, executable formal specifications provide machine-checkable constraints for verifying, debugging, and repairing code. However, writing such specifications is labor-intensive, and existing LLM-based methods mainly infer whole-program pre/postconditions, missing the intermediate semantic commitments that programmers rely on when reasoning about an algorithm. Our study further shows that prompting current CodeLLMs often produces executable assertions that are syntactically invalid, trivial, or too weak to reject behavior-changing faults. In this paper, we study executable checkpoint specification generation, where assertions are inserted at meaningful internal program points to describe expected intermediate states. We introduce SpecCoder, a verification-guided CodeLLM training framework that learns from validated reference programs, behavior-changing mutants, and multi-turn specification-refinement traces. SpecCoder selects specifications that hold on correct executions while rejecting faulty executions, turning specifications from passive annotations into executable evidence. To evaluate this setting, we introduce HumanExec, a benchmark built from recent Codeforces competitive programming problems with test suites, reference solutions, and human buggy submissions, supporting three tasks: specification generation, program correctness checking, and program repair. Experiments on HumanExec show that SpecCoder substantially improves checkpoint-specification quality over base CodeLLMs. Across Qwen2.5-Coder models, SpecCoder improves inline-specification correctness by up to 55.8%, completeness by up to 358.1%, and executable assertion validity by up to 26.6%. These gains further translate to downstream correctness reasoning and repair, showing that executable checkpoints provide fine-grained evidence for reliable verification.

PairCoder++: Pair Programming as a Universal Paradigm for Verified Code-Driven Multimodal and Structured-Artifact Generation

Code is the medium through which large language models generate structured artifacts: charts, scientific figures, vector graphics, CAD models, 3D scenes, and hardware designs are all produced by writing programs. In this regime single pass inference is brittle, because the compiler, renderer, or simulator that decides whether the artifact exists is invisible to the model. We present PairCoder, which grounds review in the toolchain and realizes it as two agent pair programming: a Driver agent writes the program, a Navigator agent reviews it against verification evidence (diagnostics, execution results, and renderings of the current artifact beside the target), and the two switch roles when errors persist. Across 17 public benchmarks and seven models from three vendors, PairCoder improves essentially every benchmark whose artifact is verifiable, on full official metric suites rather than execution alone (for example, Blender scene executability 0.20 to 0.78; TikZ compile rate up 10 to 30 points on every model), at 2.9 to 9.2 times single model cost (about 7 times overall). The improvements concentrate where the toolchain provides an informative oracle and the baseline leaves headroom, and the method ties or mildly regresses where the oracle is weak; we frame pair programming as a reliable recipe for verified code driven generation.

Evidence-Driven LLM Agent for C-to-Synthesizable-C Conversion and Verification

Software-compilable C programs routinely fail to complete the four-stage pipeline of a high-level synthesis (HLS) toolchain -- compilation, C simulation (CSim), synthesis, and C/RTL co-simulation (CoSim) -- because HLS accepts only a synthesizable subset of C (HLS-C). Yet most existing large language model (LLM) systems built for HLS code repair only cover the early pipeline stages and feed raw tool logs directly to the model, yielding brittle and hard-to-reproduce fixes. We formulate C-to-HLS-C conversion as a closed-loop generation-verification-diagnosis-repair problem on an HLS tool (Xilinx Vitis), contributing three components: an end-to-end workflow of cooperating agents closed by the four-stage verifier under strict evidence isolation; a Progressive Mismatch Localization Chain (PMLC) that localizes CSim/CoSim mismatches through log normalization, AST backward slicing, and dual-trace instrumentation; and a typed-query, two-stage evidence RAG backed by a self-evolving, family-routed repair-card pool. Experimental results show that the proposed workflow substantially outperforms all comparable state-of-the-art models.

The Verification Horizon: No Silver Bullet for Coding Agent Rewards

A classical intuition holds that verifying a solution is easier than producing one. For today's coding agents, this intuition is being inverted: as foundation models develop stronger reasoning capabilities and engineering harnesses grow more sophisticated, generating complex candidate solutions is no longer difficult -- reliably verifying them has become the harder problem. Every verifier we can build is only a proxy for human intent, never the intent itself. This makes verification subject to a twofold difficulty: first, intent is underspecified by nature, making it inherently hard to faithfully check whether it has been fulfilled; second, during model training, optimization widens the gap between proxy and intent -- manifesting as reward hacking or signal saturation. To address this, we characterize the quality of verification signals along three dimensions -- scalability, faithfulness, and robustness -- and argue that achieving all three simultaneously is the central challenge. We further study four reward constructions: a test verifier for general coding tasks, a rubric verifier for frontend tasks, the user as verifier for real-world agent tasks, and an automated agent verifier for long-horizon tasks. Across different task types and policy capability levels, we conduct in-depth analysis and experiments on the core challenges of reward design and how to more effectively leverage reward signals. Experiments show that targeted verification design can effectively suppress reward hacking, improve task completion quality, and achieve significant gains across multiple internal and public benchmarks. These experiences collectively point to a core observation: no fixed reward function can remain effective as policy capability continues to grow; and verification must co-evolve with the generator.

MoCA-Agent: A Market-of-Claims Code Agent for Financial and Numerical Reasoning

Financial and tabular question answering requires more than fluent reasoning: answers must be grounded in the exact facts, formulas, units, signs, and scales that support them. A single misread cell or incorrect operation can silently produce a plausible but wrong result. We introduce \textsc{MOCA-Agent}, a market-of-claims code agent that replaces free-form multi-agent debate with claim-level verification. The system decomposes each question into typed atomic claims, asks specialist trader agents to buy or sell those claims, clears their orders into confidence-weighted accept/reject decisions, and synthesizes an executable Python program from market-supported evidence. A code-aware verifier then checks the program for execution, structural consistency, and common financial reasoning errors, with at most one market-aware repair round. Across ten public benchmarks spanning financial numerical reasoning, general tabular reasoning, ESG question answering, and multimodal chart reasoning, \textsc{MOCA-Agent} achieves strong performance using a fixed Qwen3.6-27B backbone, including $78.3\%$ on FinQA, $76.0\%$ on FinanceMath, $71.2\%$ on MultiHiertt, $86.9\%$ on ESGenius, and $85.6\%$ average on FinChart-Bench. These results show that aggregating evidence at the level of atomic claims, rather than whole answers, improves robustness in high-stakes numerical reasoning.\footnote{The code and data are available: https://github.com/UBC-NLP/MoCA-Agent.

Beyond Objective Equivalence: Constraint Injection for LLM-Based Optimization Modeling on Vehicle Routing Problems

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly translate natural-language optimization problems into executable solver code. Yet for constraint-dense operations research (OR) problems, existing data-filtering and training pipelines largely rely on objective-equivalence signals such as differential testing and answer agreement, which a program can pass while adding spurious constraints or silently omitting required ones, whenever those constraints are non-binding on the tested instance. We propose constraint injection, which uses feasible probes to expose spurious over-constraint and one-constraint-violating probes to reveal silent constraint omission. Combined with differential testing, it forms a dual verifier. We instantiate and evaluate it on vehicle routing problems (VRPs), a representative constraint-dense combinatorial optimization testbed with coupled operational constraints. We develop VRPCoder, an 8B end-to-end model that translates natural-language VRP scenarios into Gurobi scripts, together with an expert-verified VRP benchmark suite covering 21 variants. The verifier is reused as a rejection-sampling filter during data synthesis and as a per-rollout reward in group relative policy optimization (GRPO). Across four VRP benchmarks, VRPCoder-GRPO reaches 93\% average Pass@1, outperforms Gemini-3.1-Pro Preview on three benchmarks, exceeds Claude-Sonnet-4.5 by 28 average points, and surpasses prior OR-LLMs by 78 average points.

RefEvo: Agentic Design with Co-Evolutionary Verification for Agile Reference Model Generation

As the complexity of System-on-Chip (SoC) designs grows, the shift-left paradigm necessitates the rapid development of high-fidelity reference models (typically written in SystemC) for early architecture exploration and verification. While Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in code generation, their application to hardware modeling faces unique challenges: (1) Rigid, static workflows fail to adapt to varying design complexity, causing inefficiency; (2) Context window overflow in multi-turn interactions leads to catastrophic forgetting of critical specifications; and (3) the Coupled Validation Failure problem--where generated Testbenches (TBs) incorrectly validate flawed models due to correlated hallucinations--severely undermines reliability. To address these limitations, we introduce RefEvo, a dynamic multi-agent framework designed for agile and reliable reference modeling. RefEvo features three key innovations: (1) A Dynamic Design Planner that autonomously decomposes design specifications and constructs tailored execution workflows based on semantic complexity; (2) A Co-Evolutionary Verification Mechanism, which employs a Dialectical Arbiter to simultaneously rectify the model and verification logic against the specification (Spec) oracle, effectively mitigating false positives; and (3) A Spec Anchoring Strategy for lossless context compression. Evaluated on a diverse benchmark of 20 hardware modules, RefEvo achieves a 95% pass rate, outperforming static baselines by a large margin. Furthermore, our context optimization reduces token consumption by an average of 71.04%, achieving absolute savings of over 70,000 tokens per session for complex designs while maintaining 100% specification recall.