MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Model-based WCET Analysis with Invariants

2015· article· en· W2256808767 on OpenAlexaff
Bojan Nokovic, Emil Sekerinski

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnische Universität Berlin – Universitätsbibliothek · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCorrectnessConcurrencyProbabilistic logicMarkov decision processState (computer science)Code (set theory)Static analysisAutomatonProcess (computing)Theoretical computer scienceProgramming languageAlgorithmMarkov processArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of worst case execution time (WCET) analysis in model-based designs allows timing problems to be discovered in the early phases of development, when they are less expensive to correct than in later phases. In this paper, we show how model-based WCET analysis can improve timing calculations compared to program-based WCET analysis. The models are described by hierarchical state machines with concurrency, probabilistic transition, stochastic transitions, costs/rewards attached to states and transitions, and invariants attached to states. In these models, user-specified invariants serve to check the correctness of designs by restricting allowed state configurations. Our contribution is to use invariants additionally to determine transition combinations (paths) that can be eliminated from the WCET analysis, with the help of a decision procedure, thus making the analysis more precise. The assembly code of transitions for a specific target is generated and execution time for that code calculated. From the model, a probabilistic timed automaton (PTA) or Markov decision process (MDP) can be created. On that model, execution times of transitions are calculated as costs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnische Universität Berlin – UniversitätsbibliothekSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207