Energy Cost Models of Smartphones for Task Offloading to the Cloud
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Task offloading from smartphones to the cloud is a promising strategy to enhance the computing capability of smartphones and prolong their battery life. However, task offloading introduces a communication cost for those devices. Therefore, the consideration of the communication cost is crucial for the effectiveness of task offloading. To make task offloading beneficial, one of the challenges is to estimate the energy consumed in communication activities of task offloading. Accurate energy estimation models will enable these devices to make the right decisions as to whether or not to perform task offloading, based on the energy cost of the communication activities. Simply put, if the offloading process consumes less energy than processing the task on the device itself, then the task is offloaded to the cloud. To design an energy-aware offloading strategy, we develop energy models of the WLAN, third-generation, and fourth-generation interfaces of smartphones. These models make smartphones capable of accurately estimating the energy cost of task offloading. We validate the models by conducting an extensive set of experiments on five smartphones from different vendors. The experimental results show that our estimation models accurately estimate the energy required to offload tasks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it