skip to main content
10.1145/3067695.3082519acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Deep parameter optimisation on Android smartphones for energy minimisation: a tale of woe and a proof-of-concept

Published:15 July 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

With power demands of mobile devices rising, it is becoming increasingly important to make mobile software applications more energy efficient. Unfortunately, mobile platforms are diverse and very complex which makes energy behaviours difficult to model. This complexity presents challenges to the effectiveness of off-line optimisation of mobile applications. In this paper, we demonstrate that it is possible to automatically optimise an application for energy on a mobile device by evaluating energy consumption in-vivo. In contrast to previous work, we use only the device's own internal meter. Our approach involves many technical challenges but represents a realistic path toward learning hardware specific energy models for program code features.

References

  1. MAX17047/MAX17050 ModelGauge m3 Fuel Gauge. URL https://datasheets.maximintegrated.com/en/ds/MAX17047-MAX17050.pdf. Accessed November 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. International Energy Agency. Key world energy statistics 2015, 2015. URL http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/key-world-energy-statistics-2015.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Android Power Profiles. Android. URL https://source.android.com/devices/tech/power.html. retrieved 03/2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Android Developers. Optimizing for doze and app standby. URL https://developer.android.com/training/monitoring-device-state/doze-standby.html. Accessed 23 March 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Abhijeet Banerjee, Lee Kee Chong, Sudipta Chattopadhyay, and Abhik Roy-choudhury. Detecting energy bugs and hotspots in mobile apps. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pages=588--598, year=2014, organization=ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Mahmoud Bokhari and Markus Wagner. Optimising energy consumption heuristically on android mobile phones. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) Companion, pages 1139--1140. ACM, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Mahmoud A. Bokhari, Yuanzhong Xia, Bo Zhou, Brad Alexander, and Markus Wagner. Validation of internal meters of mobile android devices. CoRR, abs/1701.07095, 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.07095.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Bobby R Bruce, Justyna Petke, and Mark Harman. Reducing energy consumption using genetic improvement. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pages 1327--1334. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Bobby R. Bruce, Jonathan M. Aitken, and Justyna Petke. Deep parameter optimisation for face detection using the viola-jones algorithm in OpenCV. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Search-Based Software Engineering (SSBSE), pages 238--243. Springer, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Bobby R. Bruce, Justyna Petke, Mark Harman, and Earl T. Barr. Approximate oracles and synergy in software energy search spaces. Technical report, Research Note RN/17/01, Department of Computer Science, University College London, 2017. URL http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/fileadmin/UCL-CS/research/Research_Notes/RN_17_01.PDF.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Canalys. Smart phones overtake client PCs in 2011, 2012. URL https://www.canalys.com/static/press_release/2012/canalys-press-release-030212-smart-phones-overtake-client-pcs-2011_0.pdf. Accessed on 24 March 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and T. A. M. T. Meyarivan. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(2):182--197, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jie Han and Michael Orshansky. Approximate computing: An emerging paradigm for energy-efficient design. In Proceedings of the 2013 European Test Symposium (ETS), pages 1--6. IEEE, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Saemundur O. Haraldsson and John R. Woodward. Genetic improvement of energy usage is only as reliable as the measurements are accurate. In Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pages 821--822. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Mark Harman and Bryan F Jones. Search-based software engineering. Information and software Technology, 43(14):833--839, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Abram Hindle, Alex Wilson, Kent Rasmussen, E. Jed Barlow, Joshua Charles Campbell, and Stephen Romansky. Greenminer: A hardware based mining software repositories software energy consumption framework. In Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pages 12--21. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Hammad Khalid, Emad Shihab, Meiyappan Nagappan, and Ahmed E. Hassan. What do mobile app users complain about? IEEE Software, 32(3):70--77, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ding Li and William GJ Halfond. Optimizing energy of http requests in android applications. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Software Development Lifecycle for Mobile, pages 25--28, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Ding Li, Angelica Huyen Tran, and William GJ Halfond. Making web applications more energy efficient for OLED smartphones. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 527--538, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Irene Manotas, Christian Bird, Rui Zhang, David Shepherd, Ciera Jaspan, Caitlin Sadowski, Lori Pollock, and James Clause. An empirical study of practitioners' perspectives on green software engineering. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages=237--248, year=2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Irene Manotas, Lori Pollock, and James Clause. Seeds: A software engineer's energy-optimization decision support framework. In Proceedings of the 36th Int. Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 503--514. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Adel Noureddine and Ajitha Rajan. Optimising energy consumption of design patterns. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 623--626. IEEE Press, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Open Signal. Android fragmentation visualized, 2015. URL hrtps://opensignal.com/reports/2015/08/android-fragmentation/. Accessed on 24 March 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Candy Pang, Abram Hindle, Bram Adams, and Ahmed E. Hassan. What do programmers know about software energy consumption? IEEE Software, 33(3):83--89, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Fabio Pellacini. User-configurable automatic shader simplification. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 24(3):445, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Rui Pereira, Marco Couto, João Saraiva, Jácome Cunha, and João Paulo Fernandes. The influence of the Java collection framework on overall energy consumption. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Green and Sustainable Software (GREENS). ACM, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Justyna Petke, Saemundur O. Haraldsson, Mark Harman, William B. Langdon, David R. White, and John R. Woodward. Genetic Improvement of software: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Dominic P Searson, David E Leahy, and Mark J Willis. Gptips: an open source genetic programming toolbox for multigene symbolic regression. In Proceedings of the International multiconference of engineers and computer scientists, volume 1, pages 77--80. Citeseer, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Pitchaya Sitthi-Amorn, Nicholas Modly, Westley Weimer, and Jason Lawrence. Genetic Programming for shader simplification. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 30(6):152, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Mandavilli Srinivas and Lalit M. Patnaik. Genetic algorithms: A survey. Computer, 27(6):17--26, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. The Guardian. Google unveils android o, promising better battery life. URL https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/22/google-unveils-android-o-promising-better-battery-life. Accessed 23 March 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. James Tiongson. Mobile app: Marketing insights, 2015. URL https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/articles/mobile-app-marketing-insights.html. Accessed on 24 March 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Fan Wu, Westley Weimer, Mark Harman, Yue Jia, and Jens Krinke. Deep parameter optimisation. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO), pages 1375--1382. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    GECCO '17: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion
    July 2017
    1934 pages
    ISBN:9781450349390
    DOI:10.1145/3067695

    Copyright © 2017 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 15 July 2017

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

    Upcoming Conference

    GECCO '24
    Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
    July 14 - 18, 2024
    Melbourne , VIC , Australia

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader