MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014575727 · doi:10.1109/rtss46320.2019.00044

CARP: A Data Communication Mechanism for Multi-core Mixed-Criticality Systems

2019· article· en· W3014575727 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReal-Time Systems Scheduling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCriticalityLatency (audio)Communications protocolMixed criticalityCacheCore (optical fiber)Distributed computingProtocol (science)Cache coherenceComputer networkCPU cacheTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present CARP, a predictable and high-performance data communication mechanism for multi-core mixed-criticality systems (MCS). CARP is realized as a hardware cache coherence protocol that enables communication between critical and non-critical tasks while ensuring that non-critical tasks do not interfere with the safety requirements of critical tasks. The key novelty of CARP is that it is criticality-aware, and hence, handles communication patterns between critical and non-critical tasks appropriately. We derive the analytical worst-case latency bounds for requests using CARP and note that the observed per-request latencies are within the analytical worst-case latency bounds. We compare CARP against prior data communication mechanisms using synthetic and SPLASH-2 benchmarks. Our evaluation shows that CARP improves the average-case performance of MCS compared to prior data communication mechanisms, while maintaining the safety requirements of critical tasks.

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 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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReal-Time Systems SchedulingFrench-language works237,207