Green mining: a methodology of relating software change to power consumption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Power consumption is becoming more and more important with the increased popularity of smart-phones, tablets and laptops. The threat of reducing a customer's battery-life now hangs over the software developer who asks, will this next change be the one that causes my software to drain a customer's battery? One solution is to detect power consumption regressions by measuring the power usage of tests, but this is time-consuming and often noisy. An alternative is to rely on software metrics that allow us to estimate the impact that a change might have on power consumption thus relieving the developer from expensive testing. This paper presents a general methodology for investigating the impact of software change on power consumption, we relate power consumption to software changes, and then investigate the impact of static OO software metrics on power consumption. We demonstrated that software change can effect power consumption using the Firefox web-browser and the Azureus/Vuze BitTorrent client. We found evidence of a potential relationship between some software metrics and power consumption. In conclusion, we explored the effect of software change on power consumption on two projects; and we provide an initial investigation on the impact of software metrics on power consumption.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".