What should mobile app developers do about machine learning and energy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning is a popular method of learning functions from data to represent and to classify sensor inputs, multimedia, emails, and calendar events. Smartphone applications have been integrating more and more intelligence in the form of machine learning. Machine learning functionality now appears on most smartphones as voice recognition, spell checking, word disambiguation, face recognition, translation, spatial reasoning, and even natural language summarization. Excited app developers who want to use machine learning on mobile devices face one serious constraint that they did not face on desktop computers or cloud virtual machines: the end-user’s mobile device has limited battery life, thus computationally intensive tasks can harm end-user’s phone availability by draining batteries of their stored energy. How can developers use machine learning and respect the limited battery life of mobile devices? Currently there are few guidelines for developers who want to employ machine learning on mobile devices yet are concerned about software energy consumption of their applications. In this paper we combine empirical measurements of many different machine learning algorithms with complexity theory to provide concrete and theoretically grounded recommendations to developers who want to employ machine learning on smartphones.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".