arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2609.02470

Batch Before You Time: Decision-Scoped Proxy Execution for Timing-Aware Logic Rewriting

Abstract

Standard Delay Format (SDF)-annotated switching simulation distinguishes delay-dependent activity among functionally equivalent rewrites, but evaluating every candidate repeats timing, compilation, and replay. A zero-delay proxy can remove timed evaluations, but generating that proxy candidate by candidate can cost more than the timed work it saves. We present Batch Before You Time (BBYT), which compiles all candidates of one rewrite decision into one scoped zero-delay image and either commits a well-separated proxy winner or invokes the unchanged timed chain. Across 12 counterbalanced holdout sequences, BBYT reduces complete candidate-selection time by 18.05% on average; the design-level reductions are 5.84% and 30.25%, with both confidence intervals above zero. On a counterbalanced 8,192-transition C6288 workload, BBYT is 9.24% faster than the same gate executed with candidate-wise proxy launches. In the five-workload corpus, BBYT removes 32.52% of timed candidate evaluations and matches exhaustive timed selection on all 250 evaluated decisions. For on-demand timing-aware rewrite selection, proxy execution and fidelity continuation should use the same decision scope.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Pujun Su. 2026-09-02. Batch Before You Time: Decision-Scoped Proxy Execution for Timing-Aware Logic Rewriting. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02470

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Are Widely Known Findings Easier to Retract?

Failures of retraction are common in science. Why do they occur? And what determines whether a retraction is successful? We use data from citation records and Altmetrics to test proposed answers to these questions. LaCroix et al. employ network models to argue the social spread of information helps explain failures of retraction. One prediction is that widely known results, surprisingly, should be easier to retract, since their retraction is more relevant. Our results support this conclusion. We find highly cited papers show more significant reductions in citation after retraction and garner more attention to their retractions as they occur.

cs.DL

Are We There Yet? Assessing Computer-Use Agents for Blind Users' Accessible Interaction with Desktop Applications

Computer-use agents are emerging as a paradigm for agentic human-AI interaction, combining language reasoning with multi-modal interface grounding to operate GUIs. Yet their effectiveness for blind screen-reader users in real-world desktop workflows remains unclear. We present a three-week diary study with 8 blind users using OLLA, a screen-reader-accessible CUA prototype, collecting 1,258 commands across 12 applications with screenshots, UI trees, model responses, and action traces. We evaluate GPT-5 during deployment and re-execute the same commands with four additional models. GPT-5 achieved the highest success rate at 52.5%. Trace analysis reveals grounding, planning, constraint-tracking, and termination failures, while interviews reveal beyond-automation needs.

cs.HC

Self-Reports Are Not Verification: Environment-Grounded Auditing of LLM Operators in Evolutionary Search

Language model agents increasingly propose actions, observe external feedback, and explain their own behavior. Their confidence and rationales are convenient monitoring signals, but convenience is not verification. We introduce an environment-grounded audit in which every intermediate proposal receives an exact outcome. A language model operates an evolutionary Contexto search whose feedback function assigns every valid guess an exact rank without human annotation. Across 200 runs spanning five configurations and three model families, four reporting configurations produce 12,249 self-reports. We test three assumptions: stated confidence is calibrated, inherited rationales affect later proposals, and fitness-based selection improves report quality. All three fail. Operators overstate top-100 success by factors of 4.8 to 9.3, while calibration and discrimination dissociate across model families. Controlled interventions on 754 inherited rationales bound any measured benefit of the genuine rationale to roughly 250 ranks. Neither fitness-based nor random selection produces a detectable selection differential or parent-to-offspring transmission in report accuracy, despite sharply different search behavior. Agent self-reports should therefore be treated as claims to verify against the environment, not as evidence of their own reliability.

cs.AI