> Is ground-breaking, high-risk research discovering that the algorithm in the latest Intel processor matches the one other researchers (which I respect much more) discovered in 2006, and variant of which won more "branch prediction championships"? I'd say no.

That appears to be a pretty reasonable criticism of the process by which the grant was awarded.

My somewhat unfair characterisation of this research from skim reading the abstract and conclusion is: "we point out that the understanding in the academic literature is lagging behind the understanding already built into systems that are sold commercially and are in operational use".

edit:

There's something slightly humorous in considering the grant-allocation process itself as some kind of optimisation problem:

Problem (GA) : How do we best allocate resources to promote high-risk, ground-breaking research?

...and then observing that grant resources have been allocated to perform research on another piece of optimisation that already seems to have happened.

I wonder if one could obtain an ERC Advanced Grant to study the effectiveness of the current process by which ERC Advanced Grants are awarded, and suggest improvements? It is plausible that such a study could be very valuable and yet not have much political support.