Personalized Battery Lifetime Prediction for Mobile Devices based on Usage Patterns
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
Nowadays mobile devices are used for various applications such as making voice/video calls, browsing the Internet, listening to music etc. The average battery consumption of each of these activities and the length of time a user spends on each one determines the battery lifetime of a mobile device. Previous methods have provided predictions of battery lifetime using a static battery consumption rate that does not consider user characteristics. This paper proposes an approach to predict a mobile device's available battery lifetime based on usage patterns. Because every user has a different pattern of voice calls, data communication, and video call usage, we can use such usage patterns for personalized prediction of battery lifetime. Firstly, we define one or more states that affect battery consumption. Then, we record time-series log data related to battery consumption and the use time of each state. We calculate the average battery consumption rate for each state and determine the usage pattern based on the time-series data. Finally, we predict the available battery time based on the average battery consumption rate for each state and the usage pattern. We also present the experimental trials used to validate our approach in the real world.
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 | 0.001 | 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