Schedulability analysis for automated implementations of real-time object-oriented models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing complexity of real time software has led to a recent trend in the use of high level modeling languages for development of real time software. One representative example is the modeling language ROOM (real time object oriented modeling), which provides features such as object orientation, state machine description of behaviors, formal semantics for executability of models, and possibility of automated code generation. However these modeling languages largely ignore the timeliness aspect of real time systems, and fail to provide any guidance for a designer to a priori predict and analyze temporal behavior. We consider schedulability analysis for automated implementations of ROOM models, based on the ObjecTime toolset. This work builds on results presented by M. Saksena (1997), where we developed some guidelines for the design and implementation of real time object oriented models. Using the guidelines, we have modified the run time system library provided by the ObjecTime toolset to make it amenable to schedulability analysis. Based on the modified toolset, we show how a ROOM model can be analyzed for schedulability, taking into account the implementation overheads and structure. The analysis is validated experimentally, first using simple periodic models, and then using a large case study of a train tilting system.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it