Not really, although the technique <i>employs</i> a look-up table. The basic idea is that they found that many instruction sequences that cause a mis-speculation once tend to cause it again in the future. This is done in the context of ILP -- mis-speculation means that the processor thought an instruction doesn&#x27;t need data from a previous one and it executed it in advance, but then it turned out that the result <i>did</i> depend on a previous one, so the first result was retired and the instruction was executed again.<p>In order to avoid this from happening too often, they added a(nother) feedback loop in the whole process: if a sequence of instructions seems to cause a mis-speculation often enough, it&#x27;s added to a table, so that when it&#x27;s encountered again, the control unit doesn&#x27;t speculatively execute an instruction whose result is most likely going to have to be retired anyway.<p>I don&#x27;t know if there&#x27;s prior art to this, but the basic idea is fairly straightforward. I wouldn&#x27;t be surprised to learn that IBM or DEC engineers knew about this prior to 1996.