MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567563269 · doi:10.1109/dasc.2016.7777999

Partition modeling and optimization of ARINC 653 operating systems in the context of IMA

2016· article· en· W2567563269 on OpenAlexafffund
Hugo Lhachemi, Joan Adria Ruiz de Azua Ortega, David Saussié, Guchuan Zhu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReal-Time Systems Scheduling
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsortium de Recherche et d’innovation en Aérospatiale au Québec
KeywordsAvionicsComputer sciencePartition (number theory)Integrated modular avionicsInteger programmingScheduleModular designScheduling (production processes)Distributed computingLinear programmingMathematical optimizationSoftwareEngineeringAlgorithmOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adoption of Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) architecture is a technological trend in the avionics industry due to its capability of supporting space and temporal partitioning, which is mandatory for systems with mixed criticality. However, combining partition allocation and schedule design for applications sharing hardware, software, and communication resources of the same computing platform while assuring temporal behavior is a complex task that requires adequate tools for system design and integration. This paper presents the main features of a model that has been developed for simultaneous partition allocation and schedule design, which allows for automatic adjustment of both applications distribution over the partitions and scheduling parameters toward performance optimization. In the proposed model, all the variables are integer and all constraints are formulated via linear equalities and inequalities. Therefore, this problem can be efficiently solved by many existing mixed integer linear programming algorithms. A set of timing constraints at both partition and task levels are established, and different optimization objective functions are provided. The results of a case study show that, if a solution exists, the proposed model can achieve a global optimum while guaranteeing that all the constraints are met.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReal-Time Systems SchedulingFrench-language works237,207