Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Estimating WCET using prediction models to compute fitness function of a genetic algorithm

  • Published:
Real-Time Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Genetic algorithms can be used to generate input data in a real-time system that produce the worst-case execution time of a task. While generating the test data, the fitness function is normally evaluated using a cycle-accurate simulator of the processor architecture, which consumes a significant computational effort and time. We propose to replace the simulator-based actual execution with a predictive model that is trained using the samples acquired on the simulator. The feasibility of this proposal was evaluated using four distinct predictive models, namely artificial neural networks, generalized linear regression, gaussian process regression and support vector regression. The results obtained on the four benchmarks Bubble sort, Insertion Sort, Gnome sort and Shaker sorts indicate that the proposed use of prediction models can significantly reduce the temporal verification time. The time gain achieved is up to 17.7 times and the best accuracy achieved is 98.5%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abella J, Hernandez C, Quinones E, Cazorla FJ, Conmy PR, Azkarate-askasua M, Jon P, Enrico M, Tullio V (2015) WCET analysis methods: pitfalls and challenges on their trustworthiness. In: 10th IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems, Siegen, Germany, pp 1–5

  • Agresti A (2013) Categorical Data Analysis, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York, p 744

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Akaike H (1998) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Selected papers of hirotugu akaike. Springer, pp 199–213

  • Alghamdi MI, Jiang X, Zhang J, Zhang J, Jiang M, Qin X (2017) Towards two-phase scheduling of real-time applications in distributed systems. J Netw Comput Appl 84:109–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armaghani DJ, Hasanipanah M, Mahdiyar A, Majid MZ, Anieh HB, Tahir MM (2018) Airblast prediction through a hybrid genetic algorithm-ANN model. Neural Comput Appl 29(9):619–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aziz MW, Shah SAB (2015) Test-data generation for testing parallel real-time systems. In: IFIP International conference on testing software and systems. Springer, pp 211–223

  • Bambagini M, Marinoni M, Aydin H, Buttazzo G (2016) Energy-aware scheduling for real-time systems: a survey. ACM Trans Embed Comput Syst 15(1):1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baruah S, Bertogna M, Buttazzo G (2015) Multiprocessor scheduling for real-time systems. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bate I, Khan U (2011) WCET analysis of modern processors using multi-criteria optimisation. Empir Softw Eng 16(1):5–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhandari D, Murthy CA, Pal SK (2012) Variance as a stopping criterion for genetic algorithms with Elitist model. Fundam Inform 120(2):145–164

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Binkert N, Beckmann B, Black G, Reinhardt SK, Saidi A, Basu A, Hestness J, Hower DR, Krishna T, Sardashti S, Sen R, Sewell K, Shoaib M, Vaish N, Hill MD, Wood DA (2011) The gem5 simulator. ACM SIGARCH Comput Archit News 39(2):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunte S, Zolda M, Kirner R (2011) Let’s get less optimistic in measurement-based timing analysis. In: 6th IEEE international symposium on industrial and embedded systems, Vasteras, pp 204–212

  • Bunte S, Zolda M, Tautschnig M, Kirner R (2011) Improving the confidence in measurement-based timing analysis. In: 14th International symposium on object/component/service-oriented real-time distributed computing. IEEE, pp 144–151

  • Buret P, Iguchi-Cartigny J, Grimaud G (2014) Genetic algorithm for DWCET evaluation on complex platform. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE international symposium on industrial embedded systems, Pisa, pp 1–4

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Model selection and multi-model inference, vol 63, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Butko A, Garibotti R, Ost L, Sassatelli G (2012) Accuracy evaluation of GEM5 simulator system. In: 7th International workshop on reconfigurable and communication-centric systems-on-chip (ReCoSoC), pp 1–7

  • Cazorla FJ, Kosmidis L, Mezzetti E, Hernandez C, Abella J, Vardanega T (2019) Probabilistic worst-case timing analysis: taxonomy and comprehensive survey. ACM Comput Surv 52(1):1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng N, Tian Y, Zhang C (2012) Support vector machines: optimization based theory, algorithms, and extensions. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Series. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Taylor & Francis, London, p 363

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dharmajee Rao DTV, Ramesh B (2012) Experimental based selection of best sorting algorithm. Int J Mod Eng Res 2(4):2908–2912

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrmeir L, Tutz G (2013) Multivariate statistical modelling based on generalized linear models. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, p 426

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Glorot X, Bengio Y (2010) Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pp 249–256

  • Gustafsson J, Betts A, Ermedahl A, Lisper B (2010) The Malardalen WCET benchmarks: past, present and future. In: International Workshop on Worst-case Execution time Analysis. Brussels, Belgium, pp 137–147

  • Haftka RT, Villanueva D, Chaudhuri A (2016) Parallel surrogate-assisted global optimization with expensive functions: a survey. Struct Multidiscip Optim 54(1):3–13

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hagan MT, Menhaj MB (1994) Training feedforward networks with the Marquardt algorithm. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 5(6):989–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagan Martin T, Demuth Howard B, Beale Mark H, Jesus Orlando D (2014) Neural Network Design, 2nd edn. Martin Hagan, Dame

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain BJ, Pohlheim H, Wegener J (2001) On termination criteria of evolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 3rd annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers San Francisco, California, USA, p 768

  • Kelter T, Falk H, Marwedel P, Chattopadhyay S, choudhury AR (2014) Static analysis of multi-core TDMA resource arbitration delays. Real-Time Syst 50(2):185–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim W, Cho W, Choi J, Kim J, Park C, Choo J (2019) A comparison of the effects of data imputation methods on model performance. In: 21st international conference on advanced communication technology (ICACT). IEEE, pp 592–599

  • Koopialipoor M, Armaghani DJ, Haghighi M, Ghaleini EN (2019) A neuro-genetic predictive model to approximate overbreak induced by drilling and blasting operation in tunnels. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78(2):981–990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozyrev VP (2016) Estimation of the execution time in real-time systems. Program. Comput. Softw. 42(1):41–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kudjo PK, Ocquaye E, Ametepe W (2017) Review of genetic algorithm and application in software testing. Int J Comput Appl 160(2):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Law S, Bate I (2016) Achieving Appropriate test coverage for reliable measurement-based timing analysis. In: 28th Euromicro conference on real-time systems (ECRTS), Toulouse, pp 189–199

  • Moayedi H, Moatamediyan A, Nguyen H, Bui X-N, Bui DT, Rashid AS (2019) Prediction of ultimate bearing capacity through various novel evolutionary and neural network models. In: Engineering with computers. Springer, pp -17

  • Myung IJ (2000) The importance of complexity in model selection. J Math Psychol 44(1):190–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nélis V, Yomsi PM, Pinho LM (2015) Methodologies for the WCET analysis of parallel applications on many-core architectures. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Euromicro conference on digital system design, Washington, DC, USA, pp 748–755

  • Njikam ANS, Zhao H (2016) A novel activation function for multilayer feed-forward neural networks. Appl Intell 45(1):75–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nwankpa C, Ijomah W, Gachagan A, Marshall S (2018) Activation functions: comparison of trends in practice and research for deep learning. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.03378

  • Pongcharoen P, Hicks C, Braiden PM, Stewardson DJ (2002) Determining optimum genetic algorithm parameters for scheduling the manufacturing and assembly of complex products. Int J Prod Econ 78(3):311–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puschner PP (1999) Real-time performance of sorting algorithms. Real-Time Syst 16(1):63–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapita Systems Ltd. (2017) Rapita verification suite, http://www.rapitasystems.com/products/rvs. (2017)

  • Rasmussen CE, Williams CKI (2006) Gaussian processes for machine learning, vol 1. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Reineke J, Wilhelm R (2016) Static timing analysis: what is special? In: Semantics, Logics, and Calculi, Volume 9560 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 74–87

  • Rodriguez-Roman D (2018) A surrogate-assisted genetic algorithm for the selection and design of highway safety and travel time improvement projects. Saf Sci 103:305–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sastry K, Goldberg DE, Kendall G (2014) Genetic algorithms. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 93–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Sha L, Caccamo M, Mancuso R, Kim J-E, Yoon M-K, Pellizzoni R, Yun H, Kegley RB, Perlman DR, Arundale G, Bradford R (2016) Real-Time computing on multicore processors. IEEE Comput 49(9):69–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah SAB, Rashid M, Arif M (2017) A prediction model for measurement-based timing analysis. In: Proceedings of 6th ACM International Conference on Software and Computer Applications (ICSCA), Thailand, pp 9–14

  • Smola AJ, Scholkopf B (2004) A tutorial on support vector regression. Stat Comput 14(3):199–222

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivas M, Patnaik LM (1994) Adaptive probabilities of crossover and mutation in genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24(4):656–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surendran A, Samuel P (2016) Evolution or revolution: the critical need in genetic algorithm based testing. Artif Intell Rev, pp 1–47

  • Tracey N, Clark J, McDermid J, Mander K (2002) A search-based automated test-data generation framework for safety-critical systems. In: Systems Engineering for Business Process Change, pp 174–213

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vapnik V (2000) The nature of statistical learning theory, vol 2. Springer-Verlag, New York, p 314

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wegener J, Grimm K, Grochtmann M, Sthamer H, Jones B (1996) Systematic testing of real-time systems. In: 4th International conference on software testing analysis and review

  • Wenzel I, Kirner R, Rieder B, Puschner P (2008) Measurement-based timing analysis. In: International symposium on leveraging applications of formal methods, verification and validation. Springer, pp 430–444

  • Zhang P, Shen C (2019) Choice of the number of hidden layers for back propagation neural network driven by stock price data and application to price prediction. J Phys 1302(2):022017

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Q, Lin M, Yang LT, Chen Z, Li P (2019) Energy-efficient scheduling for real-time systems based on deep Q-learning model. IEEE Trans Sustain Comput 4(1):132–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was primarily conducted at Science and Technology Unit, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah. The first author worked on the revisions while being affiliated with the University of South Australia. We acknowledge the funding support of KACST (King Abdul Aziz City for Science and Technology) and NSTIP (National Science Technology, Innovative Plan), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for this project (12-INF2281-10).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Electrical Engineering, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

    Syed Abdul Baqi Shah

  2. Science and Technology Unit, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Syed Abdul Baqi Shah

  3. Department of Computer Engineering, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Muhammad Rashid

  4. Department of Computer Science, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Muhammad Arif

Authors
  1. Syed Abdul Baqi Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muhammad Rashid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muhammad Arif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Syed Abdul Baqi Shah.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shah, S., Rashid, M. & Arif, M. Estimating WCET using prediction models to compute fitness function of a genetic algorithm. Real-Time Syst 56, 28–63 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11241-020-09343-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11241-020-09343-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation