MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7134824251 · doi:10.66238/ijcbs23

Memory Management and Multithreading for Low Latency and Stability in On Device Voice Assistants

2025· article· W7134824251 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel K. Morgan, Olivia J. Hart, Marcus Leung, Wing-Sze Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational and Biological Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJitterDramLatency (audio)MultithreadingScheduling (production processes)TimeoutQueueServerMicrocontroller

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intelligent voice assistants must keep delay low and service steady while running on devices with limited compute and power. We used a two-path design that combines fine memory control (fixed pools, pinned buffers, reuse) with multi-thread scheduling (separate I/O, feature, and decode threads with bounded queues and deadlines). A total of 128 trials were run on a smartphone SoC, an embedded Linux board, and a wearable-class microcontroller in both booth and office settings. Power on the main rail was sampled and aligned with software logs, and idle energy was subtracted. Median latency fell by about 37% and p95 latency by about 38–40%. Jitter dropped by roughly 25%, and timeout events fell by about 74%. Throughput increased by 21–28%. Memory pools and pinned buffers shortened allocation time by about 61–63% and reduced DRAM traffic by about 31–34%, improving the energy–delay product by 18–24%. Recognition accuracy stayed stable (WER ≤ 0.2 absolute; F1 change ≤ 0.3). These results indicate that controlling memory use together with task priority can reduce delay and improve stability without loss of accuracy. The method is applicable to phones, wearables, and embedded boards, but the study is limited by a small set of devices, short test periods, and English-only data. Future work will add far-field and multilingual speech, longer trials, and secure-execution tests.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computational and Biological SciencesSame topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207