← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.12079 · v1
Correct First, Fast Second: What a Local 7B Code Model Can and Cannot Do for GPU Kernel Optimization
首次提交 2026-11-09 16:56
版本更新 2026-11-09 16:56
雷达观测 2026-11-10 15:22
摘要
We study how much the interaction strategy around a fixed, locally hosted 7B-parameter code model (Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct) affects its ability to replace PyTorch operators with custom CUDA kernels. On 30 KernelBench tasks (levels 1-3, first 10 each, evaluated on a V100), we compare four regimes of increasing structure: zero-shot prompting, profiling-guided prompting, iterative refinement on execution feedback, and a multi-agent loop (analysis, retrieval, generation, evaluation, feedback triage) in which the same model fills four roles around a non-LLM evaluator. Three findings stand out. (1) Correctness, not speed, is the binding constraint: even correct generated kernels average 0.97-0.99x the speed of eager PyTorch, because a 7B model cannot out-write cuBLAS/cuDNN on dense GEMM and convolution; the only real wins are fused memory-bound epilogues. (2) The best strategy depends on difficulty: profiling-guided prompting is strongest overall (43% correct, 27% faster than baseline), but the agent loop is the only method that solves any level-2 fusion problem (3/10 vs. 0/10 for all others). (3) Naive agentic scaffolding is actively harmful: our first agent scored 3% correct, below zero-shot's 30%, and the decisive repairs were matching the agent's ambition to the model's competence and spending compute on best-of-n sampling under a real execution oracle (3% to 33% correct from n=1 to n=8), not on more reasoning steps.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v2 · 2026-11-11 17:46 · 最新观测版本
Correct First, Fast Second: What a Local 7B Code Model Can and Cannot Do for GPU Kernel Optimization
We study how much the interaction strategy around a fixed, locally hosted 7B-parameter code model (Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct) affects its ability to replace PyTorch operators with custom CUDA kernels. On 30 KernelBench tasks (levels 1-3, first 10 each, evaluated on a V100), we compare four regimes of increasing structure: zero-shot prompting, profiling-guided prompting, iterative refinement on execution feedback, and a multi-agent loop (analysis, retrieval, generation, evaluation, feedback triage) in which the same model fills four roles around a non-LLM evaluator. Three findings stand out. (1) Correctness, not speed, is the binding constraint: even correct generated kernels average 0.97-0.99x the speed of eager PyTorch, because a 7B model cannot out-write cuBLAS/cuDNN on dense GEMM and convolution; the only real wins are fused memory-bound epilogues. (2) The best strategy depends on difficulty: profiling-guided prompting is strongest overall (43% correct, 27% faster than baseline), but the agent loop is the only method that solves any level-2 fusion problem (3/10 vs. 0/10 for all others). (3) Naive agentic scaffolding is actively harmful: our first agent scored 3% correct, below zero-shot's 30%, and the decisive repairs were matching the agent's ambition to the model's competence and spending compute on best-of-n sampling under a real execution oracle (3% to 33% correct from n=1 to n=8), not on more reasoning steps.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗v1 · 2026-11-09 16:56
Correct First, Fast Second: What a Local 7B Code Model Can and Cannot Do for GPU Kernel Optimization
We study how much the interaction strategy around a fixed, locally hosted 7B-parameter code model (Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct) affects its ability to replace PyTorch operators with custom CUDA kernels. On 30 KernelBench tasks (levels 1-3, first 10 each, evaluated on a V100), we compare four regimes of increasing structure: zero-shot prompting, profiling-guided prompting, iterative refinement on execution feedback, and a multi-agent loop (analysis, retrieval, generation, evaluation, feedback triage) in which the same model fills four roles around a non-LLM evaluator. Three findings stand out. (1) Correctness, not speed, is the binding constraint: even correct generated kernels average 0.97-0.99x the speed of eager PyTorch, because a 7B model cannot out-write cuBLAS/cuDNN on dense GEMM and convolution; the only real wins are fused memory-bound epilogues. (2) The best strategy depends on difficulty: profiling-guided prompting is strongest overall (43% correct, 27% faster than baseline), but the agent loop is the only method that solves any level-2 fusion problem (3/10 vs. 0/10 for all others). (3) Naive agentic scaffolding is actively harmful: our first agent scored 3% correct, below zero-shot's 30%, and the decisive repairs were matching the agent's ambition to the model's competence and spending compute on best-of-n sampling under a real execution oracle (3% to 33% correct from n=1 to n=8), not on more reasoning steps.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗