By-Software Branch Prediction in Loops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Load-Dependent Branches (LDB) often do not exhibit regular patterns in their local or global history and thus are inherently hard to predict correctly by conventional branch predictors. We propose a software-to-hardware branch pre-resolution mechanism that allows software to pass branch outcomes to the processor frontend ahead of fetching the branch instruction. A compiler pass identifies the instruction chain leading to the branch (the branchbackslice) and generates the pre-execute code that produces the branch outcomes ahead of the frontend observing them. The loop structure helps to unambiguously map the branch outcomes to their corresponding dynamic instances of the branch instruction. Our approach also allows for covering the loop iteration space selectively, with arbitrarily complex patterns. Our method for pre-execution enables important optimizations such as unrolling and vectorization, in order to substantially reduce the pre-execution overhead. Experimental results on select workloads from SPEC CPU 2017 and graph analytics workloads show up to 95% reduction of MPKI (21% on average), up to 39% speedup (7% on average), and 23% IPC gain on average, compared to a core with TAGE-SC-L-64KB branch predictor.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".