Synthesis and Exploration of Multi-level, Multi-perspective Architectures of Automotive Embedded Systems (SoSYM Abstract)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In industry, evaluating candidate architectures for automotive embedded systems is routinely done during the design process. Today's engineers, however, are limited in the number of candidates that they are able to evaluate in order to find the optimal architectures. This limitation results from the difficulty in defining the candidates as it is a mostly manual process. In this work, we propose a way to synthesize multilevel, multi-perspective candidate architectures and to explore them across the different layers and perspectives. Using a reference model similar to the EAST-ADL domain model but with a focus on early design, we explore the candidate architectures for two case studies: an automotive power window system and the central door locking system. Further, we provide a comprehensive set of questions, based on the different layers and perspectives, that engineers can ask to synthesize only the candidates relevant to their task at hand. Finally, using the modeling language Clafer, which is supported by automated backend reasoners, we show that it is possible to synthesize and explore optimal candidate architectures for two highly configurable automotive subsystems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".