Green mining: investigating power consumption across versions
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
Power consumption is increasingly becoming a concern for not only electrical engineers, but for software engineers as well, due to the increasing popularity of new power-limited contexts such as mobile-computing, smart-phones and cloud-computing. Software changes can alter software power consumption behaviour and can cause power performance regressions. By tracking software power consumption we can build models to provide suggestions to avoid power regressions. There is much research on software power consumption, but little focus on the relationship between software changes and power consumption. Most work measures the power consumption of a single software task; instead we seek to extend this work across the history (revisions) of a project. We develop a set of tests for a well established product and then run those tests across all versions of the product while recording the power usage of these tests. We provide and demonstrate a methodology that enables the analysis of power consumption performance for over 500 nightly builds of Firefox 3.6; we show that software change does induce changes in power consumption. This methodology and case study are a first step towards combining power measurement and mining software repositories research, thus enabling developers to avoid power regressions via power consumption awareness.
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