Worst-case Execution Time Calculation for Query-based Monitors by Witness Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Runtime monitoring plays a key role in the assurance of modern intelligent cyber-physical systems, which are frequently data-intensive and safety-critical. While graph queries can serve as an expressive yet formally precise specification language to capture the safety properties of interest, there are no timeliness guarantees for such auto-generated runtime monitoring programs, which prevents their use in a real-time setting. While worst-case execution time (WCET) bounds derived by existing static WCET estimation techniques are safe, they may not be tight as they are unable to exploit domain-specific (semantic) information about the input models. This article presents a semantic-aware WCET analysis method for data-driven monitoring programs derived from graph queries. The method incorporates results obtained from low-level timing analysis into the objective function of a modern graph solver. This allows the systematic generation of input graph models up to a specified size (referred to as witness models ) for which the monitor is expected to take the most time to complete. Hence, the estimated execution time of the monitors on these graphs can be considered as safe and tight WCET. Additionally, we perform a set of experiments with query-based programs running on a real-time platform over a set of generated models to investigate the relationship between execution times and their estimates, and we compare WCET estimates produced by our approach with results from two well-known timing analyzers, aiT and OTAWA.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".