Optimizing User Experience in Choosing Android Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a recommendation system aimed at helping users and developers alike. We help users to choose optimal sets of applications belonging to different categories (eg. browsers, e-mails, cameras) while minimizing energy consumption, transmitted data, and maximizing application rating. We also help developers by showing the relative placement of their application's efficiency with respect to selected others. When the optimal set of applications is computed, it is leveraged to position a given application with respect to the optimal, median and worst application in its category (eg. browsers). Out of eight categories we selected 144 applications, manually defined typical execution scenarios, collected the relevant data, and computed the Pareto optimal front solving a multi-objective optimization problem. We report evidence that, on the one hand, ratings do not correlate with energy efficiency and data frugality. On the other hand, we show that it is possible to help developers understanding how far is a new Android application power consumption and network usage with respect to optimal applications in the same category. From the user perspective, we show that choosing optimal sets of applications, power consumption and network usage can be reduced by 16.61% and 40.17%, respectively, in comparison to choosing the set of applications that maximizes only the rating.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".