Isochronous Execution Models for High-Assurance Real-Time Systems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To counter the exorbitant cost of developing certifiable safety-critical software, we propose task execution models that realize an architectural mitigation-based approach to achieving high integrity and highly predictable safety-critical systems. Our premise is that high design assurance levels (DALs) for a software component may be achieved as follows: each system operation that needs a high assurance level will be handled by a software component that has high performance/quality-of-service on average, but built at a lower assurance level, and this component is “monitored” by one (or more) simple component(s) that is (are) predictable, may have lower QoS, but is (are) built at the highest assurance level. The components associated with a software function would run isochronously on separate processors. We present a suite of such isochronous allocation and scheduling problems with varying levels of generality, along with their solutions. We extend our results to the recurrent task model, where tasks should complete before their deadlines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it