Data-driven Software-based Power Estimation for Embedded Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy measurement of computer devices, which are widely used in the Internet of Things (IoT),is an important yet challenging task. Most of these IoT devices lack ready-to-use hardware or software for power measurement. In this paper, we propose an easy-to-use approach to derive a software-based energy estimation model with external low-end power meters based on data-driven analysis. Our solution is demonstrated with a Jetson Nano board and Ruideng UM25C USB power meter. Various machine learning methods combined with our smart data collection & profiling method and physical measurement are explored. Periodic Long-duration measurements are utilized in the experiments to derive and validate power models, allowing more accurate power readings from the low-end power meter. Benchmarks were used to evaluate the derived software-power model for the Jetson Nano board and Raspberry Pi. The results show that 92% accuracy can be achieved by the software-based power estimation compared to measurement. A kernel module that can collect running traces of utilization and frequencies needed is developed, together with the power model derived, for power prediction for programs running in a real environment. Our cost-effective method facilitates accurate instantaneous power estimation, which low-end power meters cannot directly provide.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".