Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 3, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
On-device assistants run GPU-based LLM inference alongside CPU retrieval on unified-memory systems. Under a saturated local-retrieval workload, four concurrent retrieval workers raise 95th-percentile (p95) decode latency by 60-61% on two M4 systems, whereas prefill latency rises by only 5.7-6.9%. We study LLM phase as an admission signal for independent CPU retrieval under controlled LLM workloads. PHASEGATE calibrates separate concurrency limits for prefill and decode, selecting four and one on our base-M4 configuration. Under a backlogged queue, it achieves 2.0 times the aggregate retrieval throughput of the best tested feasible fixed policy, with both p95 LLM latency metrics within 1.25 times their no-retrieval baselines in all seven held-out runs. A phase-blind control, TimeGate, uses the same two limits on a calibration-derived schedule without observing LLM phase. It achieves similar retrieval throughput but violates the output-token latency limit in every run. M2 and M2 Pro Mac minis reproduce the policy ordering, while output-length sweeps show that the advantage narrows as decode occupies more of each request.