MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790199451 · doi:10.1109/infocom.2018.8486421

Online Energy Management in IoT Applications

2018· article· en· W2790199451 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Sehati, Majid Ghaderi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTestbedEnergy consumptionOnline algorithmEnergy (signal processing)Internet of ThingsEnergy managementA priori and a posterioriCompetitive analysisTransmission (telecommunications)Real-time computingDistributed computingComputer networkAlgorithmUpper and lower boundsEmbedded systemTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers energy management on LTE-enabled Internet of Things (IoT) devices. A characteristic feature of IoT applications is the periodic generation of small messages, whose transmission over LTE is highly energy inefficient. In this paper, we consider application message bundling to alleviate the effect of short message transmissions on energy consumption. Specifically, we model the interplay between energy consumption and the extended DRX mechanism introduced in LTE to deal with IoT traffic. We formulate bundling as a cost minimization problem and develop an online algorithm to solve the problem. Detailed analysis shows that, depending on DRX and application parameters, our algorithm is 1, 2, or 4-competitive with respect to the optimal offline algorithm that knows the entire sequence of application messages a priori. We evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm and the accuracy of our analysis in a range of realistic scenarios using both model-driven simulations and real experiments on an IoT testbed. Our results show that, i) depending on application requirements, energy savings ranging from zero to about 100% can be achieved using our algorithm, and ii) ignoring DRX could significantly overestimate or underestimate energy 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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.213 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207