MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170510118 · doi:10.1109/tvlsi.2008.2000725

Energy Budget Approximations for Battery-Powered Systems With a Fixed Schedule of Active Intervals

2008· article· en· W2170510118 on OpenAlexaff
Daler Rakhmatov

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBattery (electricity)ScheduleComputer scienceVoltageEnergy (signal processing)Interval (graph theory)Energy consumptionEnergy budgetWork (physics)Mathematical optimizationElectrical engineeringControl theory (sociology)Reliability engineeringEngineeringPower (physics)MathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<para xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> The amount of available energy is a critical limitation of battery-powered electronic systems. The classic design goal is to minimize system energy consumption subject to performance constraints. An alternative objective would be to maximize performance under energy constraints, which requires a method for computing the energy budget corresponding to a certain battery lifetime. This paper presents such a method for systems with a fixed schedule of active intervals. Our method computes the energy budget for each active interval and guarantees that the battery survives until the end of the schedule. We rely on an accurate analytical battery model that takes into account nonlinear changes in the battery voltage, capacity loss at high discharge rates, charge recovery, and capacity fade over time. As the battery model is computationally expensive, we also present efficient approximations for computing the upper and lower bounds on the energy budget for each active interval. The main limitation of this work is our assumption that the battery current is the same for all active intervals. </para>

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) SystemsSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207