The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.00039 · v1 · pith:DQB563YV · submitted 2026-06-29 · cs.SE · cs.SY· eess.SY

Evaluating Hardware Abstraction Layer Concepts for Software Defined Vehicles: Insights into Applicability and Effectiveness

Akshay Narla , Johannes St\"umpfle , Souvik Saha , Nasser Jazdi , Michael Weyrich This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel 2026-07-02 20:47 UTCgrok-4.3pith:DQB563YVrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.SE cs.SYeess.SY
keywords Software Defined VehiclesHardware Abstraction LayerMiddlewareHypervisorAutomotive SoftwareOver-the-Air UpdatesVehicle SafetyModularity
0
0 comments X

The pith

A hybrid HAL combining hypervisor isolation with middleware standardization best meets SDV requirements for safety, modularity, and updates.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper systematically compares automotive HAL approaches and draws insights from non-automotive domains to determine which best support the shift to software-defined vehicles. It builds a criteria-driven framework focused on modularity, safety, real-time needs, and over-the-air capabilities. The evaluation concludes that middleware-based HALs deliver strong portability while hypervisor-based ones provide better isolation and efficiency. Neither approach alone fully addresses SDV demands, leading to the call for a combined design. This matters for vehicle makers seeking architectures that allow software updates and hardware changes across a vehicle's life without major rewrites.

Core claim

Using a criteria-driven evaluation framework, the paper assesses current automotive HALs alongside mechanisms from smartphones, networking, and industrial automation. It determines that middleware-based HALs provide portability and modularity while hypervisor-based approaches deliver stronger support for safety, OTA readiness, and hardware efficiency. Identified limitations in both prompt the recommendation of a hybrid HAL design that integrates hypervisor isolation with middleware standardization to better enable SDV architectures.

What carries the argument

The criteria-driven evaluation framework that measures HALs against SDV needs including modularity, interoperability, real-time processing, safety, and OTA update support.

If this is right

  • Middleware-based HALs enable easier software portability across different vehicle hardware platforms.
  • Hypervisor-based HALs improve isolation for safety-critical functions and support efficient OTA updates.
  • A hybrid HAL design can address limitations of single approaches by combining standardization and isolation.
  • Cross-domain HAL mechanisms can inform better automotive designs for real-time and lifecycle requirements.
  • Current HAL strategies require updates to fully support the decoupling of software from hardware in SDVs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Adopting the hybrid approach could shorten the time needed to certify new vehicle software variants.
  • Industry standards groups might use the evaluation criteria to define common HAL interfaces for SDVs.
  • Similar hybrid abstractions could apply to other safety-critical embedded systems such as industrial controllers.
  • Future work could test the hybrid design in open-source vehicle platforms to quantify integration overhead.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen evaluation criteria fully capture SDV requirements and that HAL techniques from other domains transfer to automotive use without major adaptation.

What would settle it

A vehicle prototype built with the recommended hybrid HAL that shows no measurable gains in safety certification time or OTA deployment speed compared to existing middleware or hypervisor solutions would undermine the recommendation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00039 by Akshay Narla, Johannes St\"umpfle, Michael Weyrich, Nasser Jazdi, Souvik Saha.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Idea of decoupling hardware and software with HAL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Main HAL Mechanisms B. Automotive HAL Automotive HALs require stringent requirements in ad￾dition to other features of HAL. Aligning with non￾automotive HAL classifications, we classify current automo￾tive HAL methods or approaches also as Software Architec￾ture/ Middleware-based and Hypervisor-based. 1) Middleware/API-based HAL: Middleware/API-based HALs in the automotive domain aim to simplify developmen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evaluation of Automotive HALs against the criteria set in Table I [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The emergence of Software-Defined Vehicles represents a fundamental shift in automotive design, prioritizing software-centric architectures over traditional hardware-driven models. SDVs require modularity, interoperability, real-time processing, and over-the-air update capabilities throughout the vehicle lifecycle. However, current vehicle systems, characterized by tightly coupled software and hardware, struggle to meet these demands due to their complexity and heterogeneity. A critical first step toward enabling SDVs is the decoupling of software from hardware, which can be facilitated through a robust Hardware Abstraction Layer. While existing HALs offer hardware independence and standardized interfaces, their applicability and effectiveness in SDV contexts remain uncertain. This paper systematically evaluates current automotive HALs and explores HAL mechanisms from non-automotive domains, including smartphones, networking, and industrial automation, to extract cross-domain insights relevant to SDV development. A criteria-driven evaluation framework is developed to assess HALs against SDV-specific needs. Findings reveal that while middleware-based HALs offer portability and modularity, hypervisor-based approaches better support safety, OTA readiness, and hardware efficiency. Limitations in both approaches are identified, prompting recommendations for a hybrid HAL design that integrates hypervisor isolation with middleware standardization. This paper contributes to the ongoing developments in automotive software architecture by offering insights into the applicability and effectiveness of current HAL strategies. It provides actionable guidance for designing flexible, scalable, and future-ready HALs to support SDVs across their lifecycle.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper develops a criteria-driven evaluation framework to compare middleware-based and hypervisor-based Hardware Abstraction Layers (HALs) for Software-Defined Vehicles (SDVs). It evaluates automotive HALs and extracts insights from non-automotive domains (smartphones, networking, industrial automation). The central findings are that middleware-based HALs provide better portability and modularity while hypervisor-based approaches better support safety, OTA readiness, and hardware efficiency; the paper therefore recommends a hybrid design integrating hypervisor isolation with middleware standardization.

Significance. If the framework criteria are shown to be exhaustive for SDV requirements (including functional safety paths and lifecycle OTA constraints) and the cross-domain transfer is explicitly validated rather than assumed, the work could supply actionable architectural guidance for decoupling software from hardware in next-generation vehicles. The cross-domain scope and identification of complementary strengths in the two HAL classes are potentially useful contributions to automotive software engineering.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / criteria-driven evaluation framework section] Abstract and the section describing the criteria-driven evaluation framework: the manuscript states that the framework was developed and applied to assess HALs against SDV-specific needs, yet supplies no list of the criteria, no derivation or weighting procedure, no validation against automotive standards (e.g., ISO 26262), and no explicit analysis of how mechanisms from non-automotive domains were adapted. Because the comparative conclusions and hybrid recommendation rest entirely on this framework, its opacity renders the central claims unevaluable.
  2. [Findings / recommendation] Findings and recommendation paragraphs: the claim that hypervisor-based approaches are superior for safety, OTA readiness, and hardware efficiency is presented as a direct outcome of the framework, but without the criteria or scoring details it is impossible to determine whether key SDV constraints (real-time certification paths, vehicle-lifecycle update constraints) were included or whether the cross-domain transfer was demonstrated rather than assumed.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief forward reference to the exact location (section number) where the full criteria list and application procedure appear.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We agree that the criteria-driven evaluation framework requires substantially more transparency to support the central claims and allow proper evaluation. We will revise the manuscript to address both major comments by expanding the framework description, adding the missing details on criteria, derivation, validation, and cross-domain adaptation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / criteria-driven evaluation framework section] Abstract and the section describing the criteria-driven evaluation framework: the manuscript states that the framework was developed and applied to assess HALs against SDV-specific needs, yet supplies no list of the criteria, no derivation or weighting procedure, no validation against automotive standards (e.g., ISO 26262), and no explicit analysis of how mechanisms from non-automotive domains were adapted. Because the comparative conclusions and hybrid recommendation rest entirely on this framework, its opacity renders the central claims unevaluable.

    Authors: We acknowledge that this comment is correct: the manuscript introduces the framework but does not supply an explicit list of criteria, derivation or weighting details, validation against ISO 26262, or analysis of cross-domain adaptations. We will revise by adding a dedicated subsection that (1) enumerates all criteria with definitions, (2) explains derivation from SDV requirements (modularity, safety, OTA, real-time) and weighting based on automotive priorities, (3) references ISO 26262 for safety-related criteria, and (4) provides explicit mappings and justification for transferring mechanisms from smartphones, networking, and industrial automation to the SDV context. This will make the framework fully transparent and the conclusions evaluable. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Findings / recommendation] Findings and recommendation paragraphs: the claim that hypervisor-based approaches are superior for safety, OTA readiness, and hardware efficiency is presented as a direct outcome of the framework, but without the criteria or scoring details it is impossible to determine whether key SDV constraints (real-time certification paths, vehicle-lifecycle update constraints) were included or whether the cross-domain transfer was demonstrated rather than assumed.

    Authors: We agree this is a valid observation. The findings and hybrid recommendation depend on the framework, yet the current text lacks the criteria details needed to verify inclusion of real-time certification paths and lifecycle update constraints or to demonstrate (rather than assume) cross-domain transfer. In revision we will (1) explicitly incorporate these constraints into the criteria list, (2) provide scoring or assessment details showing how each finding maps to specific criteria, and (3) add concrete examples and rationale demonstrating the transferability of non-automotive mechanisms. This will directly substantiate the superiority claims and the hybrid recommendation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: qualitative evaluation framework is self-contained

full rationale

The paper develops and applies a criteria-driven evaluation framework to compare middleware-based and hypervisor-based HALs for SDVs, drawing on external domain knowledge from automotive standards and non-automotive domains (smartphones, networking, industrial automation). No mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-citations appear in the provided text. The central claims rest on the framework's application to described mechanisms rather than reducing any result to inputs by construction or via self-referential definitions. This is a standard qualitative analysis with no load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the domain assumption that SDV requirements are accurately captured by the listed properties and that HAL properties observed in other domains apply without modification; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption SDVs require modularity, interoperability, real-time processing, and over-the-air update capabilities throughout the vehicle lifecycle.
    Invoked in the opening paragraph as the motivation and evaluation target.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5803 in / 1248 out tokens · 31536 ms · 2026-07-02T20:47:46.652476+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The software defined vehicle – technical and organizational challenges and opportunities,

    G. Keßler, D. Sieben, A. Bhange, and E. B ¨orner, “The software defined vehicle – technical and organizational challenges and opportunities,” in

    work page

  2. [2]

    Internationales Stuttgarter Symposium, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Rewriting the rules of software-defined vehicles,

    A. K. et al., “Rewriting the rules of software-defined vehicles,” Boston Consulting Group: https://www.bcg.com/publications/2023/ rewriting- rules-of-software-defined-vehicles, Tech. Rep., 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Deterministic and reliable software-defined vehicles: key building blocks, challenges, and vision,

    P. V . Teixeira, D. Raposo, R. Lopes, and S. Sargento, “Deterministic and reliable software-defined vehicles: key building blocks, challenges, and vision,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.17287

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Software-defined vehicle support and coordi- nation project,

    E. Peltonen and et al., “Software-defined vehicle support and coordi- nation project,”Federate Project F orecast Report, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Modern middlewares for automated vehicles: A tutorial,

    D. P. Kl ¨uner, M. Molz, A. Kampmann, S. Kowalewski, and B. Alrifaee, “Modern middlewares for automated vehicles: A tutorial,”

    work page

  7. [7]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.07817

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.07817

    work page arXiv

  8. [8]

    Choosing a suitable requirement prioritization method: A survey,

    E. Alhenawi, S. Awawdeh, R. A. Khurma, M. Garc ´ıa-Arenas, P. A. Castillo, and A. Hudaib, “Choosing a suitable requirement prioritization method: A survey,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13149

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    The digital foundation platform -a multi-layered soa architecture for intelligent connected vehicle operating system,

    D. Yu and A. Xiao, “The digital foundation platform -a multi-layered soa architecture for intelligent connected vehicle operating system,” in SAE Technical Paper Series, 2022

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Towards a unified hardware abstraction layer architecture for embedded systems,

    H. Peng and R. D ¨omer, “Towards a unified hardware abstraction layer architecture for embedded systems,” CECS, UC Irvine, Tech. Rep., 2012

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    Android open source project

    A. Developers, “Android open source project.” [Online]. Available: https://source.android.com/

    work page

  12. [12]

    Digital twin and cyber-physical system integration in commercial vehi- cles: Latest concepts, challenges and opportunities,

    V . F. de Oliveira, G. Matiolli, C. J. B. J´unior, R. Gaspar, and R. G. Lins, “Digital twin and cyber-physical system integration in commercial vehi- cles: Latest concepts, challenges and opportunities,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    What is nfv?

    Redhat, “What is nfv?” [Online]. Available: https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/virtualization/what-is-nfv

    work page

  14. [14]

    Technical overview and performance evaluation of virtio-loopback,

    T. Ampelikiotis, A. Rigo, and D. Raho, “Technical overview and performance evaluation of virtio-loopback,” inICAI, 2024

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Available: https://arm- software.github.io/CMSIS 6/latest/General/index.html

    ARM, “Cmsis.” [Online]. Available: https://arm- software.github.io/CMSIS 6/latest/General/index.html

    work page

  16. [16]

    Zephyr project documentation

    Z. P. Members, “Zephyr project documentation.” [Online]. Available: https://docs.zephyrproject.org/latest/

    work page

  17. [17]

    A survey of security vulnerabilities in android automotive apps,

    A. Moiz and M. H. Alalfi, “A survey of security vulnerabilities in android automotive apps,” inProceedings of EnCyCriS, Pittsburgh, USA, 2022

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Vehicle api and service catalog for next generation mobility,

    S. Aust, “Vehicle api and service catalog for next generation mobility,” in2022 25th International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia Communications (WPMC), 2022

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Soafee architecutre documentation

    S. P. Members, “Soafee architecutre documentation.” [Online]. Available: https://architecture.docs.soafee.io/en/latest/

    work page

  20. [20]

    A safety-certified vehicle os to enable software-defined vehicles,

    J. Becker, M. Sagar, and D. Pangercic, “A safety-certified vehicle os to enable software-defined vehicles,” inAutomatisiertes Fahren 2021, T. Bertram, Ed., 2021

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Performance analysis of open-source hypervisors for automotive systems,

    Z. Zhang, Y . Liu, J. Chen, Z. Qi, Y . Zhang, and H. Liu, “Performance analysis of open-source hypervisors for automotive systems,” in27th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2021

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Qnx hypervisor

    Blackberry, “Qnx hypervisor.” [Online]. Avail- able: https://blackberry.qnx.com/en/products/foundation-software/qnx- hypervisor

    work page

  23. [23]

    Solid foundation for automotive software platform

    Elektrobit, “Solid foundation for automotive software platform.” [On- line]. Available: https://www.elektrobit.com/products/ecu/eb-corbos/

    work page

  24. [24]

    Xen hypervisor documentation

    X. project members, “Xen hypervisor documentation.” [Online]. Avail- able: https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Xen Project Release Features

    work page

  25. [25]

    Virtualization and microservice architecture for software-defined ve- hicles: An evaluation and exploration,

    L. Wen, M. Rickert, F. Pan, J. Lin, Y . Zhang, T. Betz, and A. Knoll, “Virtualization and microservice architecture for software-defined ve- hicles: An evaluation and exploration,” 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    A comprehensive survey on the use of hypervisors in safety-critical systems,

    S. Lozano, T. Lugo, and J. Carretero, “A comprehensive survey on the use of hypervisors in safety-critical systems,”IEEE Access, 2023

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    7 common virtualization challenges – and how to overcome them

    GDH, “7 common virtualization challenges – and how to overcome them.” [Online]. Available: https://gdhinc.com/7-common- virtualization-challenges-and-how-to-overcome-them/

    work page

  28. [28]

    Gm says it’s ditching apple carplay and android auto for your safety,

    S. Evans, “Gm says it’s ditching apple carplay and android auto for your safety,” 2023

    work page 2023