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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
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