MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032220240 · doi:10.1109/iwcmc.2011.5982599

Impact of packet aggregation on energy consumption in smartphones

2011· article· en· W2032220240 on OpenAlexaff
Rajesh Palit, Kshirasagar Naik, Ajit Kumar Singh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNetwork packetComputer scienceEnergy consumptionFlowchartComputer networkEnergy (signal processing)Real-time computingAirfield traffic patternWirelessTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the tremendous growth in mobile applications, communication accounts for a significant portion of a smartphone's total energy consumption. We studied the traffic pattern of smartphones and observed that a good portion of the packets are of small size and the generated traffic is bursty in nature. Motivated by these observations, we propose a Low Energy Data-packet Aggregation Scheme (LEDAS) in this paper. It accumulates a number of upper layer packets into a burst at medium access control (MAC) level, based on accumulation time, size, and number of packets. With this scheme, larger bursts lead to longer inactivity periods during which the communication module can be kept in doze mode. In addition, fewer MAC frames lead to less overheads and contentions in the wireless medium. However, the data packets incur delays due to the accumulation process. We have given a detail flowchart description of the technique. By means of analysis, we have derived expressions for the average values of burst size, burst inter-arrival times, and number of packets in a burst. We also evaluated the efficacy of the technique by simulations and showed the energy-delay trade-offs. Finally, we explained a test-bench to evaluate the energy saving potential of LEDAS on a smartphone.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207