MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084330521 · doi:10.1145/1454503.1454562

Modeling the energy cost of applications on portable wireless devices

2008· article· en· W2084330521 on OpenAlexaff
Rajesh Palit, Ajit Kumar Singh, Kshirasagar Naik

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWirelessSoftwareEnergy consumptionEmbedded systemComponent (thermodynamics)Reliability engineeringReal-time computingElectrical engineeringEngineeringTelecommunicationsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extending the battery life of portable wireless devices has been in the focus of researchers for close to a decade. Several energy management techniques have been investigated at different levels of system design -- starting from silicon at the bottom to application design at the top, with communication protocols and operating system in between. In this paper, we present a model to estimate the energy cost of an application running on a portable wireless device. To develop the cost model, we partition a wireless device into two components, namely, computation and communication. Each component is modeled by a state-transition diagram. Two attributes are associated with each state: an average power cost and a state residence time. The cost of each state of the state-transition diagrams is validated by actual measurements. For a constant voltage supply, the average power cost of a state is denoted by the average current drawn by the component. The state residence times are estimated from the behavior of applications. The cost model has been validated by performing actual measurement of energy cost. We find that the estimated cost and the actual energy cost are within 5-10% of each other. This study will help us in improving the design of energy efficient software for portable devices. Moreover, the energy consumption breakdown into components will be an essential guide for future research in energy management of hardware and software systems.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207