Resolving Availability and Run-time Integrity Conflicts in Real-Time Embedded Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Run-time integrity enforcement in real-time systems presents a fundamental conflict with availability. Existing approaches in real-time systems primarily focus on minimizing the execution-time overhead of monitoring. After a violation is detected, prior works face a trade-off: (1) prioritize availability and allow a compromised system to continue to ensure applications meet their deadlines, or (2) prioritize security by generating a fault to abort all execution. In this work, we propose PAIR, an approach that offers a middle ground between the stark extremes of this trade-off. PAIR monitors real-time tasks for run-time integrity violations and maintains an Availability Region (AR) of all tasks that are safe to continue. When a task causes a violation, PAIR triggers a non-maskable interrupt to kill the task and continue executing a non-violating task within AR. Thus, PAIR ensures only violating tasks are prevented from execution, while granting availability to remaining tasks. With its hardware approach, PAIR does not cause any run-time overhead to the executing tasks, integrates with real-time operating systems (RTOSs), and is affordable to low-end microcontroller units (MCUs) by incurring +2.3% overhead in memory and hardware usage.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".