Centralized automotive architectures increasingly consolidate compute-intensive workloads onto heterogeneous Multi-Processor System-on-Chip (MPSoC), creating strict execution, memory, and communication constraints. This paper presents RunSoC 2.0, a customizable framework for early-stage design-space exploration of task scheduling and allocation on heterogeneous MPSoCs. Building on RunSoC 1.0, which targeted allocation on homogeneous hardware, RunSoC 2.0 extends the framework to heterogeneous platforms by modeling processor-specific execution times, cluster-level organization, and domain-specific processing properties. It represents task sets as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) subjected to strict end-to-end latency and core-affinity constraints, and formulates task scheduling and allocation as a multi-objective optimization problem that minimizes hierarchical memory-budget violations and inter-core/inter-cluster communication penalties. The framework supports multiple solving backends, including COIN-OR Branch and Cut (CBC), Google OR-Tools CP-SAT, and a Genetic Algorithm (GA), enabling comparative evaluation of exact, constraint-programming, and meta-heuristic approaches. We evaluate RunSoC 2.0 using synthetic automotive task sets ranging from 10 to 500 tasks, mapped to representative heterogeneous MPSoCs, including the Renesas R-Car V4H, NVIDIA Jetson AGX Orin, and TI TDA4VM. The results show that RunSoC 2.0 can generate feasible and optimal schedules, expose architectural bottlenecks, and support rapid comparison of platform alternatives. Notably, CP-SAT consistently outperforms both CBC and the GA across tightly constrained hard real-time scheduling instances. By incorporating cluster-aware communication and memory modeling, RunSoC 2.0 improves the realism of early-stage MPSoC analysis while retaining practical solution times for large automotive workloads. (..)
D. Krüger, Lucas Mauser, Stefan Wagner· 0 citations
Explainability has emerged as a critical requirement for AI-based systems, particularly in safety-critical and regulated domains. Although prior research has proposed frameworks, patterns, and user-centered approaches to support explainability, there is limited empirical understanding of how existing Requirements Engineering (RE) practices support explainability requirements across the RE lifecycle, especially in an industrial context. This paper reports early findings from an ongoing industry-based study investigating how explainability requirements are elicited, specified, and validated using established RE techniques. We conducted a multi-phase qualitative study with eight practitioners at Daimler Truck, employing think-aloud protocols and moderated group discussions across requirements elicitation, specification, and validation steps. Our preliminary analysis reveals recurring challenges across all steps, including conceptual ambiguity during elicitation, limited testability and expressiveness during specification, and fragmented validation due to vague criteria and regulatory uncertainty. These findings indicate that current RE practices provide limited support to systematically address explainability requirements. The paper contributes empirical insights into step-specific and cross-cutting challenges and outlines a research vision toward developing an empirically grounded RE framework for explainable AI-based systems.
Umm E. Habiba, Lucas Mauser, J. Fritzsch et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.