MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810586790 · doi:10.1109/iciea.2018.8398005

Delay bound analysis for heterogeneous multicore systems using network calculus

2018· article· en· W2810586790 on OpenAlexafffund
Meng Li, Guchuan Zhu, Yvon Savaria

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInterconnection Networks and Systems
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNetwork calculusComputer scienceMulti-core processorUpper and lower boundsScheduling (production processes)Task (project management)Distributed computingTransmission (telecommunications)Formal methodsParallel computingMathematical optimizationComputer networkQuality of serviceMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In heterogeneous multicore systems, a real challenging problem is to provide a timing performance guarantee for applications that have stringent timing constraints. One challenge is that task execution time varies. A dominant solution to this issue is to use the worst-case execution time as an upper bound. Another challenge arises from the communication delays due to task dependencies, which highly depend on task scheduling schemes. There lacks a formal approach to provide a rigorous analysis of transmission delays for heterogeneous multicore systems. In this paper, a mathematical tool, namely Network Calculus, is employed for end-to-end delay analysis. Under this framework, a virtual channel concept is first introduced for communication between CPU cores. Then a flow regulation model is proposed for network performance analysis. An upper bound of communication delays in a heterogeneous multicore system is established. A case study is provided to demonstrate the proposed approach. Based on a formal analysis, mathematical upper bounds of transmission delays are obtained to ensure the system performance.

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 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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInterconnection Networks and SystemsFrench-language works237,207