MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1673553675 · doi:10.1109/taes.2015.140063

Scheduling periodic task graphs for safety-critical time-triggered avionic systems

2015· article· en· W1673553675 on OpenAlexaff
Menglan Hu, Jun Luo, Yang Wang, Bharadwaj Veeravalli

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReal-Time Systems Scheduling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBacktrackingAvionicsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Job shop schedulingDistributed computingFlexRayAerospaceAutomotive industryEmbedded systemReal-time computingEngineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time-triggered communication protocols, such as time-triggered protocol (TTP) and FlexRay, have the potential to solve many system integration and concurrent engineering issues in the aerospace industry. This paper investigates the scheduling of periodic applications on time-triggered systems. A novel scheduling problem is formulated to capture a unique feature commonly existing in the safety-critical time-triggered systems, i.e., in task graphs running in such systems, some nodes (i.e., tasks and messages) are strictly periodic while others are not. To address the problem, a novel scheduling algorithm called synchronized highest level first (SHLF) algorithm is presented. Moreover, to further improve schedulability, this paper also proposes two rescheduling and backtracking approaches, namely release time deferment (RTD) procedure and backtracking and priority promotion (BPP) procedure. Performance evaluation results are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness and competitiveness of our approaches when compared with existing algorithms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic SystemsSame topicReal-Time Systems SchedulingFrench-language works237,207