Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

On the Limits of Machine-Learned Ranking for Modern Microarchitectural Policies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that learned performance predictors should be evaluated by how well they rank designs per instruction window, not by regression error alone, and that four predictor families fail exactly where rankings reverse or margins…

desk verdict Solid empirical study of window-level ranking for ML performance predictors, but the capacity-independence claim is overreached and the abstract contradicts its own Table V on OneDSE. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01041 v1 pith:L4BUGSL2 submitted 2026-08-02 cs.AR cs.LG

Yanxin Zhang , Shayne Wadle , Yuxuan Xiong , Zheyu Fu , Trivikram Krishnamurthy , Karu Sankaralingam This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ARcs.LG
keywords machinelearningforarchitecturedesign-spaceexplorationpairwiserankingcounter-intuitivewindowspartialobservabilityinstruction-windowpredictionprefetchingandreplacementpoliciescycle-levelsimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that standard validation metrics for learned performance predictors—regression error or aggregate accuracy—miss what design-space exploration actually needs: reliable ordering of candidate designs at instruction-window granularity. It evaluates four predictor families, an LSTM, a CNN/MLP, a window-summary model, and a Transformer, under a common protocol with the same trace-derived inputs and targets. For structural changes like issue width or cache size, aggregate ordering is strong, but on counter-intuitive windows—where the expected-slower configuration is actually faster—all four families fall below the 50% random strict-ordering reference. For behavioral policies like prefetching and replacement, ground-truth ties cover 37.8% of pair-windows and no family reliably beats a feature-free majority baseline, with the best selected head improving by only 2.1 percentage points. The paper argues this is not a model-capacity problem: because the decisive microarchitectural state is absent from the instruction trace, a Bayes ceiling limits any trace-based predictor.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are counter-intuitive windows, the pair-margin decomposition, and a partial-observability Bayes limit. A counter-intuitive window (CIW) is a non-tied instruction window in which the configuration expected to be slower is faster; conditioning the ranking metric on these windows isolates reversal detection from recovery of the dominant hardware trend. The margin decomposition, expressed as $P(\text{misrank}) \le P(|\Delta|\le \gamma) + P(|D|\ge \gamma)$, shows that narrow true margins amplify prediction error. The Bayes limit, $A^*_{ab} = \mathbb{E}_X[\max_s P(S_{ab}=s|X)]$, together with the data-processing inequality $I(S;Z) \le I(S;X)$, carries the argument that hidden policy state, not model expressiveness, bounds trace-based ranking.

What would settle it

Train the same four predictor families on the same aligned traces and windows but add the hidden dynamic state as features (cache-hit levels, prefetch-queue occupancy, replacement metadata, outstanding-miss counts); if BP strict-pair match then decisively exceeds the feature-free majority baseline and CIW match crosses the 50% random-ordering reference on the five clear-prior pairs, the paper's Bayes-ceiling claim for trace-only inputs is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ML-based microarchitectural performance prediction should be evaluated as a ranking problem, not only a regression problem, and that under that test the predictors fail in a specific, structured way. Four predictor families share a protocol: they see the same six-field instruction features and predict cycle counts for the middle 500 instructions of 1500-instruction windows. In the structural-parameter regime, all-window pairwise agreement reaches 77–89%, but on the five pairs with a clear architectural prior, counter-intuitive windows make up 22.4% of non-tied windows and CIW match is only 23.3–39.9%, below the 50% random strict-ordering reference. In the behavioral-policy regime, 37.8% of pair-windows are ground-truth ties, most strict pairs differ by only a few cycles, and no model family reliably beats a train-pair-majority baseline; the best selected Transformer head improves by 2.1 percentage points, with gains concentrated at wide margins. The paper concludes that this pattern is not a capacity failure: when the true ranking label depends on hidden microarchitectural state that is not among the observed instruction features, no trace-based predictor can exceed the Bayes accuracy set by observable inputs alone.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes its four style instantiations faithfully represent the actual NeuroScalar, SimNet, Concorde, and OneDSE systems; in particular, Concorde's analytical front-end with dynamic cache and branch state is removed in the common protocol, so the conclusion that trace-based predictors cannot rank these policies better would not extend to the full system if that front-end supplies the missing hidden state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Architects should not treat regression accuracy or aggregate ranking as evidence that a learned predictor can order closely matched designs at the per-window level.
  • ML surrogates remain useful for coarse structural pruning, where margins are large; the paper's SP results put that regime at 77–89% agreement and describe it as a positive control.
  • Future evaluations of learned predictors should report tie-aware, margin-stratified, pair-level ranking against a feature-free majority baseline, because those metrics expose the failures documented here.
  • For behavioral-policy selection at instruction-window granularity, cycle-level simulation remains necessary, since the best measured gain over the majority baseline is only 2.1 percentage points and that gain is concentrated on high-margin pairs that are already easy to rank.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Bayes-limit argument is right, adding cheap dynamic-state summaries—sampled cache-hit levels, prefetch-queue occupancy, or replacement metadata at checkpoints—should move BP ranking above the trace-only ceiling; the paper discusses this tradeoff but does not test it.
  • The same partial-observability ceiling should apply to other learned policy-ranking tasks, such as branch-predictor choices, DRAM scheduling, or cache-replacement decisions, where simulator-internal state is invisible to the input features.
  • A practical hybrid emerges implicitly: use trace-based ML to prune the structural space, then reserve cycle-level simulation for the surviving behavioral-policy candidates; the paper sketches this as a middle ground but does not evaluate it end-to-end.
  • The learnable minority of benchmarks with repeated memory phases suggests that observable phase structure is what makes ranking learnable; a targeted feature-selection study of those phase patterns could identify when trace-based ranking is viable before deployment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether machine-learned performance predictors can support design-space-exploration ranking at instruction-window granularity. It instantiates four predictor families (NeuroScalar-style LSTM, SimNet-style CNN/MLP, Concorde-style summary model, OneDSE-style Transformer) on a common trace-based protocol with 29 SPEC CPU2006 traces, two design regimes (Structural Parameters and Behavioral Policies), chronological splits, tie-aware metrics, and a feature-free majority baseline. In the SP regime, aggregate ordering is strong (77–89% all-window agreement) but the counter-intuitive-window (CIW) match is only 23.3–39.9%, below the 50% random strict-ordering reference for all four families. In the BP regime, 37.8% of pair-windows are ties, most strict margins are a few cycles, and only the selected OneDSE head beats the majority baseline, by 2.1 percentage points. The paper argues via an information-theoretic argument (§VI-C) that this failure is not a matter of model capacity but of partial observability: ranking outcomes depend on hidden microarchitectural state absent from the instruction stream, and no trace-based predictor can exceed the Bayes accuracy determined by observable inputs alone.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuinely important question for ML-based design-space exploration: regression accuracy does not imply ranking fidelity, especially for closely matched policies and for local reversals of a structural prior. The experimental protocol is a real strength: common input alignment across configurations, chronological splits with guard bands, paired trace bootstrapping, tie-aware evaluation, and a feature-free majority baseline are all appropriate and carefully described. The CIW diagnostic is a useful new evaluation lens, and the margin analysis correctly explains why ranking and regression accuracy can diverge. If the empirical claims survive scrutiny, the paper would be a valuable caveat to the ML-for-architecture literature. The main weakness is that the strongest theoretical conclusion—that the failure is not a matter of capacity—is not directly supported: the Bayes ceiling A* is never estimated, no capacity-scaling experiments are reported, and the model families are simplified instantiations of the systems whose names they carry.

major comments (3)
  1. [§VI-C, Eq. (11)] The central claim that the ranking failure is 'not a matter of model capacity' is load-bearing but is not established. Eq. (11) defines the Bayes accuracy A*_ab = E_X max_s P(S_ab=s|X), but the paper never estimates this quantity and never shows that the four trained families operate near it. The observed failures are equally consistent with underfitting or under-training; indeed, §IV(e) states that NeuroScalar-style and SimNet-style results use only one completed seed, and no learning-curve or capacity-scaling experiment is reported. The indirect evidence cited in §V-D (95.8% within-one-cycle regression accuracy) does not resolve this, because, as the paper itself notes, differential ranking error can remain high even when absolute regression is accurate. Please either estimate A* (for example, with a calibrated probabilistic model, a nearest-neighbor lower bound, or an oracle-feature experiment) or add capacity/training-signal scaling studies; alternatively, soften the capacity-independence claim to 'consistent with partial observability' rather than asserting it as established.
  2. [§III, Table I] The external validity of the negative result is limited by the way the predictor families are instantiated. For Concorde, the full system combines an analytical front-end with lightweight cache and branch simulation, but Table I states that this work instantiates only the ML backbone over window statistics. If the real Concorde, or the real NeuroScalar/SimNet/OneDSE systems with dynamic-state inputs, would rank these windows correctly, the conclusion that 'no trace-based predictor can exceed the Bayes accuracy' would not apply to those systems. The paper explicitly disclaims exact reimplementation, but the abstract and conclusion state the limitation in generality. Please add a state-aware variant (for example, supplementing features with cache-hit levels, prefetch confidence, or replacement metadata) to test whether the failure is specifically due to the six-field trace, or restrict the capacity-independence claim to the exact feature set used and state that the result does not cover predictors with dynamic-state inputs.
  3. [§V-G, Table X] The headline CIW claim—that all four families fall below the 50% random strict-ordering reference—is reported as point estimates without uncertainty quantification. Table V reports trace-bootstrap confidence intervals for the BP results, but Table X reports only single numbers per pair and model. Given that CIW fractions range from 13.2% to 43.5% and that the number of CIW windows per pair may be small, some of these estimates could be statistically indistinguishable from 50% or from each other. Please provide paired trace-bootstrap intervals for the CIW match rates, or at least per-pair sample sizes, so the claim is not overstated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§V-C] The heading contains a typo: 'Realiability' should be 'Reliability'.
  2. [§III-B, Eq. (2)] The notation in Eq. (2) is unclear: the concatenation bracket notation and the variables s and R would benefit from a sentence defining the split positions explicitly, especially since the text already explains the window structure in words.
  3. [Figure 1] The symmetric-log scale in Figure 1 is unusual for a box plot and the caption does not state what the box bounds or whiskers represent; please add a clear legend and a short description of the box elements.
  4. [§VI-D, Figure 6] Figure 6 is explicitly disclaimed as not proof of non-learnability, which is appropriate; the accompanying claim that the raw feature space 'does not contain an obvious low-dimensional partition' is qualitative and should be labeled as such in the main text, not only in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ranking results are measured against external ChampSim ground truth; the Bayes-limit argument is definitional, and the only self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claims are not circular. All four predictor families are trained on one partition of ChampSim trace data and evaluated on a held-out chronological test partition; ranking accuracy, CIW match, tie rates, and margin decompositions are computed against simulator ground-truth cycle counts, not against the models' own outputs or fitted values. The CIW diagnostic uses an architectural prior external to the learned models and not used as a training target; the finding that models fall below the 50% random-ordering reference on those windows is a measured negative result. The Bayes-limit analysis (Eq. 10-11) is a definitional upper bound: A*_ab is by definition the best achievable accuracy given X, and the data-processing inequality is a standard external theorem; the paper does not derive the empirical failures from this bound but interprets them as consistent with it. The main weakness is evidentiary, not circular: the paper asserts the failure is 'not a matter of model capacity' without estimating the Bayes ceiling or running capacity-scaling/learning-curve experiments, so underfitting remains a live alternative explanation. This is an over-claim from insufficient evidence, not a circular derivation. The paper itself disclaims the t-SNE evidence ('this visualization is not proof of non-learnability'), further showing that the conclusion rests on under-measured inference rather than definitional identity. The only self-citation is NeuroScalar [27], co-authored by the present authors and used as one of the four style families; the evaluation is a re-instantiation, and the paper's results are largely critical of it, so the citation is not load-bearing. Score 1 reflects the minor self-citation and the definitional nature of the Bayes bound, with no circular step in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central ranking results do not depend on fitted constants introduced by the paper. The analysis rests on the observability assumption that labels are determined by observed X and hidden H, plus standard information-theoretic inequalities. No new physical or architectural entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ranking label S_ab is generated by a function g_ab(X, H), where X is the observed instruction window and H is hidden microarchitectural state.
    This formal model in Section VI-C is the premise for the Bayes limit; it assumes that all missing information relevant to the ranking is captured by H.
  • standard math Data processing inequality and Fano's inequality apply to the ranking task as posed.
    Section VI-C uses these standard results to argue that no representation Z computed only from X can carry more information about S than X itself.
  • domain assumption The six-field instruction trace (PC, opcode, memory address, source/destination registers) is the complete observable for a trace-based predictor.
    The entire evaluation and the conclusion about trace-based predictors depend on this input restriction, stated in Section III-A.
  • domain assumption The five SP pairs have clear architectural priors as listed in Section IV-h.
    The counter-intuitive-window metric relies on external expectations about which configuration should be faster; if those priors are wrong, the CIW diagnostic is mislabeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Limits of Machine-Learned Ranking for Modern Microarchitectural Policies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4BUGSL2

@misc{pith2026260801041,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Limits of Machine-Learned Ranking for Modern Microarchitectural Policies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4BUGSL2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01041}
}
abstract

Machine-learning predictors estimate processor performance far faster than cycle-level simulation. For design-space exploration, however, the valuable test is not merely reproducing the usual hardware ordering, but identifying how different hardware configurations rank on individual program phases. We evaluate four ML-predictors in two design regimes: \emph{Structural Parameters} (SP), varying hardware resources such as issue width, ROB size, and cache capacity; and \emph{Behavioral Policies} (BP), varying prefetching and replacement algorithms. In the SP regime, aggregate ranking is strong, yet counter-intuitive windows(CIW)---where the configuration expected to be slower is faster---constitute $22.4\%$ of non-tied windows across five pairs with a clear architectural prior. CIW match across these pairs is only $23.3$--$39.9\%$; every point estimate is below the $50\%$ random strict-ordering reference. The BP regime presents a different failure: ground-truth ties cover $37.8\%$ of pair-windows, most strict pairs have margins of only a few cycles, and no model family reliably beats a feature-free majority baseline. NeuroScalar and SimNet fall below that baseline, Concorde is statistically tied with it, and the best selected OneDSE head improves by only $2.1$ percentage points. Accuracy rises mainly at large margins. We further show that this failure is not a matter of model capacity: an information-theoretic analysis reveals that when ranking outcomes depend on hidden microarchitectural state absent from the instruction stream, no trace-based predictor can exceed the Bayes accuracy determined by observable inputs alone. Thus high cycle or aggregate ranking accuracy can reflect mastery of easy, high-margin cases while missing the local reversals that carry the most architectural insight and for which cycle-level simulation remains indispensable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01041 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Signed per-window IPC gain of BEM (Berti–Entangling–Mockingjay) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Common evaluation pipeline. Each model receives the same trace [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Policy-ranking difficulty: only selected OneDSE has a trace-bootstrap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Composition of the 20.878M aligned policy-pair test windows. Ties [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Partial observability in policy ranking. The true order depends on both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Characterizing machine learning-based runtime prefetcher selection,

    E. S. Alcorta, M. Madhav, R. Afoakwa, S. Tetrick, N. J. Yadwadkar, and A. Gerstlauer, “Characterizing machine learning-based runtime prefetcher selection,”IEEE Computer Architecture Letters, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 146–149, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Gaze into the pattern: characterizing spatial patterns with internal temporal correlations for hardware prefetching,

    Z. Chen, C. Wu, Y . Gu, R. Jia, J. Li, and M. Guo, “Gaze into the pattern: characterizing spatial patterns with internal temporal correlations for hardware prefetching,” in2025 IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA). IEEE, 2025, pp. 173– 187

    2025

  3. [3]

    Simtrace: Capturing over time program phase behavior,

    S. Flolid, E. Shriver, Z. Susskind, B. Thorell, and L. K. John, “Simtrace: Capturing over time program phase behavior,” in2020 IEEE Interna- tional Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), 2020, pp. 226–228

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    The championship simulator: Ar- chitectural simulation for education and competition,

    N. Gober, G. Chacon, L. Wang, P. V . Gratz, D. A. Jimenez, E. Teran, S. Pugsley, and J. Kim, “The championship simulator: Ar- chitectural simulation for education and competition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14324, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Barca: Branch agnostic region searching algorithm,

    D. A. J. P. V . Gratz and G. C. N. Gober, “Barca: Branch agnostic region searching algorithm,”The First Instruction Prefetching Championship, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Using machine learning to guide architecture simulation

    G. Hamerly, E. Perelman, J. Lau, B. Calder, T. Sherwood, and H. Hirsh, “Using machine learning to guide architecture simulation.”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 7, no. 2, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Efficiently exploring architectural design spaces via predictive mod- eling,

    E. ¨Ipek, S. A. McKee, R. Caruana, B. R. de Supinski, and M. Schulz, “Efficiently exploring architectural design spaces via predictive mod- eling,”ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 195–206, 2006

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Construction and use of linear regression models for processor performance analysis,

    P. Joseph, K. Vaswani, and M. J. Thazhuthaveetil, “Construction and use of linear regression models for processor performance analysis,” in The Twelfth International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, 2006.IEEE, 2006, pp. 99–108

    work page 2006

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    A predictive per- formance model for superscalar processors,

    P. Joseph, K. Vaswani, and M. J. Thazhuthaveetil, “A predictive per- formance model for superscalar processors,” in2006 39th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO’06). IEEE, 2006, pp. 161–170

    2006

  2. [10]

    Machine learning-based microarchitecture- level power modeling of cpus,

    A. K. A. Kumar, S. Al-Salamin, H. Amrouch, and A. Gerstlauer, “Machine learning-based microarchitecture- level power modeling of cpus,”IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 941–956, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Learning-based cpu power model- ing,

    A. K. A. Kumar and A. Gerstlauer, “Learning-based cpu power model- ing,” in2019 ACM/IEEE 1st Workshop on Machine Learning for CAD (MLCAD), 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  4. [12]

    Accurate and efficient regression mod- eling for microarchitectural performance and power prediction,

    B. C. Lee and D. M. Brooks, “Accurate and efficient regression mod- eling for microarchitectural performance and power prediction,”ACM SIGOPS operating systems review, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 185–194, 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    Illustrative design space studies with microarchitectural regression models,

    B. C. Lee and D. M. Brooks, “Illustrative design space studies with microarchitectural regression models,” in2007 IEEE 13th International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture. IEEE, 2007, pp. 340–351

    2007

  6. [14]

    Machine learning based online performance prediction for runtime parallelization and task scheduling,

    J. Li, X. Ma, K. Singh, M. Schulz, B. R. de Supinski, and S. A. McKee, “Machine learning based online performance prediction for runtime parallelization and task scheduling,” in2009 IEEE international symposium on performance analysis of systems and software. IEEE, 2009, pp. 89–100

    2009

  7. [15]

    Learning generalizable program and architecture representations for performance modeling,

    L. Li, T. Flynn, and A. Hoisie, “Learning generalizable program and architecture representations for performance modeling,” inSC24: In- ternational Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, 2024, pp. 1–15

    2024

  8. [16]

    Simnet: Accurate and high-performance computer architecture simulation using deep learning,

    L. Li, S. Pandey, T. Flynn, H. Liu, N. Wheeler, and A. Hoisie, “Simnet: Accurate and high-performance computer architecture simulation using deep learning,”Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., vol. 6, no. 2, Jun. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3530891

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Ithemal: Accurate, portable and fast basic block throughput estimation using deep neural networks,

    C. Mendis, A. Renda, S. Amarasinghe, and M. Carbin, “Ithemal: Accurate, portable and fast basic block throughput estimation using deep neural networks,” inInternational Conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2019, pp. 4505–4515

    2019

  10. [18]

    Light-weight cache replacement for instruction heavy workloads,

    S. Mostofi, S. Gupta, A. Hassani, K. Tibrewala, E. Teran, P. V . Gratz, and D. A. Jim ´enez, “Light-weight cache replacement for instruction heavy workloads,” inProceedings of the 52nd Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, 2025, pp. 1005–1019

    2025

  11. [19]

    Concorde: Fast and accurate cpu performance modeling with compositional analytical-ml fusion,

    A. Nasr-Esfahany, M. Alizadeh, V . Lee, H. Alam, B. W. Coon, D. Culler, V . Dadu, M. Dixon, H. M. Levy, S. Pandey, P. Ranganathan, and A. Yazdanbakhsh, “Concorde: Fast and accurate cpu performance modeling with compositional analytical-ml fusion,” inProceedings of the 52nd Ann...

    2025

  12. [20]

    Berti: an accurate local-delta data prefetcher,

    A. Navarro-Torres, B. Panda, J. Alastruey-Bened ´e, P. Ib´a˜nez, V . Vi˜nals- Y´ufera, and A. Ros, “Berti: an accurate local-delta data prefetcher,” in 2022 55th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO). IEEE, 2022, pp. 975–991

    2022

  13. [21]

    Scalable deep learning-based microarchitecture simulation on gpus,

    S. Pandey, L. Li, T. Flynn, A. Hoisie, and H. Liu, “Scalable deep learning-based microarchitecture simulation on gpus,” inSC22: Inter- national Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, 2022, pp. 1–15

    2022

  14. [22]

    Tao: Re-thinking dl-based microarchitecture simulation,

    S. Pandey, A. Yazdanbakhsh, and H. Liu, “Tao: Re-thinking dl-based microarchitecture simulation,”Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., vol. 8, no. 2, May 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3656012

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Onedse: A unified microprocessor metric prediction and design space exploration framework,

    R. Raj, A. Ramachandran, J. Nye, S. Nemawarkar, and T. Krishna, “Onedse: A unified microprocessor metric prediction and design space exploration framework,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.03771

    2025

  16. [24]

    A cost-effective entangling prefetcher for instructions,

    A. Ros and A. Jimborean, “A cost-effective entangling prefetcher for instructions,” in2021 ACM/IEEE 48th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 99–111

    2021

  17. [25]

    Effective mimicry of belady’s min policy,

    I. Shah, A. Jain, and C. Lin, “Effective mimicry of belady’s min policy,” in2022 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 558–572

    2022

  18. [26]

    Granite: A graph neural network model for basic block throughput estimation,

    O. S ´ykora, P. M. Phothilimthana, C. Mendis, and A. Yazdanbakhsh, “Granite: A graph neural network model for basic block throughput estimation,” in2022 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Char- acterization (IISWC), 2022, pp. 14–26

    2022

  19. [27]

    Neuroscalar: A deep learning framework for fast, accurate, and in-the-wild cycle-level performance prediction,

    S. Wadle, Y . Zhang, V . Singh, and K. Sankaralingam, “Neuroscalar: A deep learning framework for fast, accurate, and in-the-wild cycle-level performance prediction,” 2025, arXiv:2509.22410. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.22410

    2025

  20. [28]

    A survey of machine learning for computer architecture and systems,

    N. Wu and Y . Xie, “A survey of machine learning for computer architecture and systems,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 55, no. 3, Feb

  21. [29]

    Rank-dse: Neural pareto comparator of microarchitecture design space exploration,

    P. Xu, S. Zheng, M. Wang, Z. Yu, S. Chen, T. Chen, K. Zhu, T. Ho, and B. Yu, “Rank-dse: Neural pareto comparator of microarchitecture design space exploration,”ACM Trans. Des. Autom. Electron. Syst., vol. 30, no. 5, Aug. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3747294

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    Accurate phase-level cross- platform power and performance estimation,

    X. Zheng, L. K. John, and A. Gerstlauer, “Accurate phase-level cross- platform power and performance estimation,” inProceedings of the 53rd Annual Design Automation Conference, 2016, pp. 1–6

    2016

  23. [2022]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3494523

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3494523

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.