arXiv subjects

Hongxu Xu

Publications and source records attributed to Hongxu Xu.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Semantic-aware and Self-improving Program Reduction via Agentic Large Language Models

Reducing bug-triggering programs to their minimal essential form is a fundamental task in debugging language processors such as compilers and interpreters. Existing reduction techniques are limited by their reliance on predefined, syntax-driven transformations that lack semantic understanding of the target program, and by their inability to learn from past reduction experiences. We present a new approach that recasts program reduction as an autonomous reasoning task powered by agentic Large Language Models (LLMs). Instead of applying fixed transformation rules, our method enables an LLM to analyze program semantics, formulate reduction hypotheses, and iteratively refine its approach based on execution outcomes. Successful reduction experiences are further distilled into reusable strategies, allowing the system to continuously improve over time. We realize this approach in PROJ, a framework built around two collaborative components: a reducer agent that performs semantic-aware, case-specific program reduction, and a reflector agent that extracts and accumulates transferable reduction knowledge. Extensive experiments on 90 benchmarks spanning three programming languages show that PROJ consistently produces smaller reduced programs than all existing state-of-the-art reducers while maintaining high efficiency.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Can Coding Agents Implement Missed Compiler Optimizations? Evaluating LLM Agents on LLVM Peephole Optimizations

Coding agents built on large language models are now capable of patching sizable real-world codebases, yet whether they can develop compiler optimizations remains an open question. To study this question, we introduce PeepholeBench, an evaluation framework whose tasks are constructed from real-world missed peephole optimizations reported against LLVM's InstCombine pass. Since missed peephole optimizations are typically fixed with small, localized patches, they offer a well-scoped but demanding testbed for coding agents: a correct fix demands rigorous reasoning about program semantics along with familiarity with optimizer-specific conventions. PeepholeBench derives its tasks from 21 resolved LLVM issues and 19 merged pull requests (PRs), supplies agents with only the issue context that existed before each fix, and assesses the resulting patches for both correctness and profitability. With PeepholeBench, we benchmark state-of-the-art coding agents on fixing missed peephole optimizations in LLVM's InstCombine pass, measuring their patches against the corresponding human-written fixes. We observe a tension between correctness and profitability, and no agent matches human developers on both dimensions at once. The dominant failure modes are overly narrow transformations and misuse of LLVM-specific mechanisms, errors that existing test suites rarely expose. Together, these results establish PeepholeBench as a realistic and challenging benchmark for coding agents, and suggest future directions for building agents that can more dependably assist compiler optimization development.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Leveraging Large Language Models for Generalizing Peephole Optimizations

Peephole optimizations are a core component of modern optimizing compilers. It rewrites specific instruction into semantically equivalent but more efficient forms. In practice, creating a new peephole optimization often starts from a concrete optimization instance and requires lifting it into a more general rewrite rule that matches a wider range of instruction patterns. This generalization step is critical to optimization effectiveness, but it is also difficult: producing rules that are both correct and sufficiently general typically demands substantial manual effort and domain expertise. Existing approaches such as Hydra attempt to automate this task with program synthesis, but their generalization capability is often limited by search-space explosion, under-generalization, and restricted support for diverse instruction domains. We present LPG, large language model aided peephole optimization generalization, a framework that uses large language models (LLMs) to generalize peephole optimizations. The design of LPG is motivated by the observation that LLMs are effective at semantic abstraction and exploratory reasoning, while formal analyses are necessary to ensure that generated rules are sound and profitable. Based on this observation, LPG adopts a closed-loop workflow that integrates LLM-driven symbolic constant generalization, structural generalization, constraint relaxation, and bitwidth/precision generalization with feedback from syntactic validation, semantic verification, and profitability checking. We evaluate LPG on real-world peephole optimization issues drawn from the LLVM ecosystem. Overall, LPG successfully generalizes 90 out of 102 optimizations. On the integer-focused subset that is directly comparable to Hydra, LPG generalizes 74 out of 81 optimizations, whereas Hydra generalizes 35.

cs.PL↗

arXiv2025

LPO: Discovering Missed Peephole Optimizations with Large Language Models

Peephole optimization is an essential class of compiler optimizations that targets small, inefficient instruction sequences within programs. By replacing such suboptimal instructions with refined and more optimal sequences, these optimizations not only directly optimize code size and performance, but also enable more transformations in the subsequent optimization pipeline. Despite their importance, discovering new and effective peephole optimizations remains challenging due to the complexity and breadth of instruction sets. Prior approaches either lack scalability or have significant restrictions on the peephole optimizations that they can find. This paper introduces LPO, a novel automated framework to discover missed peephole optimizations. Our key insight is that, Large Language Models (LLMs) are effective at creative exploration but susceptible to hallucinations; conversely, formal verification techniques provide rigorous guarantees but struggle with creative discovery. By synergistically combining the strengths of LLMs and formal verifiers in a closed-loop feedback mechanism, LPO can effectively discover verified peephole optimizations that were previously missed. We comprehensively evaluated LPO within LLVM ecosystems. Our evaluation shows that LPO can successfully identify up to 22 out of 25 previously reported missed optimizations in LLVM. In contrast, the recently proposed superoptimizers for LLVM, Souper and Minotaur detected 15 and 3 of them, respectively. More importantly, within eleven months of development and intermittent testing, LPO found 62 missed peephole optimizations, of which 28 were confirmed and an additional 13 had already been fixed in LLVM. These results demonstrate LPO's strong potential to continuously uncover new optimizations as LLMs' reasoning improves.

cs.PL↗