MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165137738 · doi:10.5555/1870926.1871246

Accurate timed RTOS model for transaction level modeling

2010· article· en· W2165137738 on OpenAlexaff
Yonghyun Hwang, Gunar Schirner, Samar Abdi, Daniel G. Gajski

Bibliographic record

VenueDesign, Automation, and Test in Europe · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReal-time operating systemComputer scienceEmbedded systemContext switchTransaction processingOverhead (engineering)Scheduling (production processes)Operating systemReal-time computingEngineeringDatabase transactionDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present an accurate timed RTOS model within transaction level models (TLMs). Our RTOS model, implemented on top of system level design language (SLDL), incorporates two key features: RTOS behavior model and RTOS overhead model. The RTOS behavior model provides dynamic scheduling, inter-process communication (IPC), and external communication for timing annotated user applications. While the RTOS behavior model is running, all RTOS events, such as context switch and interrupt handling, are passed to RTOS over-head model to adopt the overhead during system execution. Our RTOS overhead model has processor- and RTOS-specific pre-characterized overhead information to provide cycle approximate estimation. We demonstrate the applicability of our model using a multi-core platform executing a JPEG encoder. Experimental results show that the proposed RTOS model provides the high accuracy, 7% off compared to on-board measurements while simulating at speeds close to the reference C code.

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)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDesign, Automation, and Test in EuropeSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207