Energy profiles of Java collections classes
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
We created detailed profiles of the energy consumed by common operations done on Java List, Map, and Set abstractions. The results show that the alternative data types for these abstractions differ significantly in terms of energy consumption depending on the operations. For example, an ArrayList consumes less energy than a LinkedList if items are inserted at the middle or at the end, but consumes more energy than a LinkedList if items are inserted at the start of the list. To explain the results, we explored the memory usage and the bytecode executed during an operation. Expensive computation tasks in the analyzed bytecode traces appeared to have an energy impact, but memory usage did not contribute. We evaluated our profiles by using them to selectively replace Collections types used in six applications and libraries. We found that choosing the wrong Collections type, as indicated by our profiles, can cost even 300% more energy than the most efficient choice. Our work shows that the usage context of a data structure and our measured energy profiles can be used to decide between alternative Collections implementations.
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