Latenrgy: Model Agnostic Latency and Energy Consumption Prediction for Binary Classifiers

Jason M. Pittman

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Latenrgy: Model Agnostic Latency and Energy Consumption Prediction for Binary Classifiers

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A model-agnostic pair of additive equations predicts inference latency and energy for binary classifiers, with responsible-AI guardrail costs included as explicit terms.

desk verdict A clearly written but unvalidated proposal: two symbolic equations for latency and energy, no data, no coefficients, but an honest limitation section and a reasonable RAI angle. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19241 v1 pith:UVAJ67YX submitted 2024-12-26 cs.LG cs.AI

Jason M. Pittman This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords ResponsibleAIlatencypredictionenergyconsumptioninferenceoverheadbinaryclassificationmodel-agnosticRAIguardrailscompute

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper attempts to establish that inference latency and energy consumption for binary classifiers can be predicted without tailoring the formula to any one model family. It constructs two additive equations that take as inputs the algorithm type, dataset characteristics, and five responsible-AI guardrails, and output predicted latency $L$ and energy $E$. The motivation is that current benchmarks report overhead only after a model is built, whereas a predictive equation would let designers estimate compute costs and RAI overhead before deployment. The contribution is a theoretical scaffold meant to be calibrated with data and tested empirically, not a fitted predictor.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the two prediction equations, (2) and (3). Their work is to encode all three variable families into a single additive functional form: algorithm type $A$ and guardrails $G$ enter as categorical and scalar terms, while dataset size enters as $\log(n)$ for latency and $n$ for energy. This shape carries the model-agnostic claim, because the equations contain no model-internal parameters and the coefficients can in principle be estimated from benchmark data once and reused across deployments.

What would settle it

Run controlled inference profiling over a grid of dataset sizes, from roughly $10^2$ to $10^6$ samples, for at least two quite different classifiers on the same hardware, fit equation (2), and inspect whether latency residuals against $\log(n)$ show curvature or whether the fitted coefficients shift between classifiers and machines; substantial mismatch would indicate the model-agnostic form needs revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that inference latency scales logarithmically with dataset size while energy scales linearly, and that all other influences combine additively with constant coefficients. The latency equation is $L = \alpha + \beta_A A + \beta_D \log(n) + \gamma_D p + \delta_D t + \sum_i \varphi_{G,i} g_i + \varepsilon$, and the energy equation is $E = \alpha' + \beta'_A A + \beta'_D n + \gamma'_D p + \delta'_D t + \sum_i \varphi'_{G,i} g_i + \varepsilon'$. Here $A$ is a categorical encoding of algorithm type (SVM, k-nearest neighbors, random forest, or neural network), $n$ is the number of samples, $p$ is feature dimensionality, $t$ is data type, and each $g_i$ represents one RAI guardrail with a binary or intensity value. The same structure is claimed to hold across classifiers, which is what makes the equations model-agnostic.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single additive formula with logarithmically scaled latency and linearly scaled energy can describe all binary classifiers across hardware once the coefficients are fixed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Before deploying a binary classifier, an engineer could estimate expected latency and energy from dataset size, feature count, data type, algorithm choice, and guardrails, then choose the configuration with acceptable overhead.
The five responsible-AI guardrails (explainability, fairness, interpretability, safety, privacy) each contribute an explicit additive term, making their inference cost visible and comparable for the first time in this form.
Cross-classifier comparison reduces to comparing the fitted algorithm coefficients $\beta_A$ and $\beta'_A$, so SVM, k-NN, random forest, and neural network overheads can be ranked without exhaustive profiling.
If the coefficients prove stable, the equations would give resource-constrained deployments a quantitative way to trade latency against energy and against the degree of RAI coverage.
Because the paper positions the equations as untested theory, their concrete value depends on the empirical calibration and sensitivity studies listed as future work.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The additive, coefficient-constant form would undercount combined overhead if RAI guardrails interact, e.g., running both an explainability tool and differential privacy on the same model; testing interaction terms is a natural extension the paper does not make.
The logarithmic latency assumption is directly testable: profiling one classifier across datasets of increasing sample size would reveal whether latency follows $\log(n)$ or drifts toward a linear or piecewise curve.
If validated on binary classifiers, the same variable structure could plausibly extend to multi-class tasks or to large language models by redefining the algorithm and dataset variables, an extension the paper only lists as future work.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a proposal, not a result. The paper gives two linear equations for latency and energy, but every coefficient is symbolic, there is no data, and the paper itself says in Section 5.1 that it presents 'theoretical equations without empirical validation.' So the abstract's use of 'predictive equations' oversells what's here.

What the paper does do well: it is clearly organized, the literature review is competent, and it honestly lists its own limitations. The novel touch is adding RAI guardrails as binary/additive terms, which I don't recall seeing in the energy/latency prediction literature. That is a legitimate gap to flag.

The soft spots are substantial. First, the equations are asserted, not derived. The log(n) latency term and linear n energy term are chosen 'based on prior research and theoretical reasoning,' but no prior result is shown to imply those forms. Second, the stress-test point is on target: for a trained SVM, random forest, or neural network, per-instance inference cost does not scale with training set size n. Only k-NN does. A single log(n) coefficient forces all four classifiers onto one curve, which can't be right. Third, there's a units mismatch: equation (2) looks per-instance (log n), equation (3) looks aggregate (linear n), and the paper never says what L and E refer to. Fourth, there are no fitted coefficients, so nothing can be predicted yet.

None of this is fatal if the paper is read as a research proposal. The author says future work will calibrate the coefficients. But as a standalone paper, it is not a contribution yet. I would desk reject with encouragement to come back with an empirical study: run the four classifiers on a few datasets, measure latency and energy, fit the coefficients, and then see if the additive form holds or needs interaction terms. That would be a real paper.

This one is for someone collecting proposals on sustainable AI or RAI overhead, not for someone looking for validated results. I wouldn't cite it yet, but I'd send it to a student as an example of honest limitation statements.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a theoretical framework, developed with Theory Construction Methodology, for predicting inference latency L and energy consumption E of binary classifiers as functions of algorithm type A, dataset characteristics D, and Responsible AI (RAI) guardrails G. The core deliverables are two linear-regression-style equations, Eq. (2) for latency and Eq. (3) for energy, in which L and E are expressed as sums of a baseline constant, algorithm-type coefficients, a logarithmic (latency) or linear (energy) dataset-size term, linear terms in feature dimensionality and data type, and per-guardrail terms. All coefficients are presented symbolically; no empirical data, coefficient estimates, or validation results are reported. The paper itself states in Section 5.1 that it presents 'theoretical equations without empirical validation' and in Section 5.2 that future experimentation is needed to 'validate and quantify the coefficients.'

Significance. The topic is timely: a validated, model-agnostic method for predicting inference latency and energy, including the overhead of RAI guardrails, would be genuinely useful for benchmarking and deployment planning. The paper is clearly organized, cites relevant literature on ML benchmarking and RAI, and is honest about its own limitations. However, as it stands the framework is definitional rather than predictive: with all coefficients unestimated and no operational definition of the target quantities (per-instance or aggregate), Eqs. (2)-(3) cannot be applied to any concrete system, and the paper provides no evidence that the assumed functional forms hold across classifiers. The contribution is at most a research agenda.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.3, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The equations are not predictive as given. All coefficients (α, β_A, β_D, γ_D, δ_D, φ_G,i and their primed counterparts) are symbolic; no values are estimated or reported, and Section 5.2 states that 'experimentation is necessary to validate and quantify the coefficients.' A predictive equation requires both a target quantity with a precise operational definition and coefficients calibrated to data. The paper does not define whether L and E refer to per-instance inference time and energy or to totals over an entire dataset, nor does it provide any mechanism to evaluate predictions on new inputs. Thus the central claim of prediction is unsupported.
[Section 4.3, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The chosen functional forms conflate per-instance and dataset-scale behavior. Latency in Eq. (2) scales as log(n), which might represent a per-instance cost for some classifiers, whereas energy in Eq. (3) scales linearly with n, which suggests an aggregate over all samples. These two interpretations are inconsistent, and no argument reconciles them. Furthermore, a single log(n) latency term cannot be model-agnostic across the four listed classifiers: k-NN inference cost grows with n (O(n) without an index), while trained SVM, random forest, and neural network per-instance costs are typically independent of n (depending on support vectors, tree depth, or architecture). No complexity-theoretic justification is offered for imposing one scaling law across all four.
[Sections 5.1 and 5.2] The paper concedes in Section 5.1 that 'this study presents theoretical equations without empirical validation' and in Section 5.2 that 'experimentation is necessary to validate and quantify the coefficients.' Because the coefficients are completely unquantified, Eqs. (2)-(3) cannot be used to predict latency or energy in any concrete setting. This is not a presentation issue: the abstract's claim that the framework 'enables researchers to benchmark and optimize inference performance' is not supported by the content of the manuscript. The paper's deliverable is a definitional model with free parameters, not a testable predictive instrument.

minor comments (4)

[Title] The term 'Latenrgy' appears in the title and throughout the text but is never defined; if it is a portmanteau of latency and energy, please spell it out or define it at first use.
[Section 2.1] There is a double closing parenthesis in '(Henderson et al., 2020))' that should be fixed.
[Section 4.2] The notation 'a ∈ SV M,k-NN ,RF,NN' contains a stray space in 'SV M' and should be formatted, e.g., as 'a ∈ {SVM, k-NN, RF, NN}'. The sentence 'A encoded as 1 ,0,0,0' is also ambiguous and should clarify that this is a one-hot encoding.
[References] The reference for SHAP is incomplete: 'Lundberg, S. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions' should be 'Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S.-I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper presents an explicit, unvalidated linear model rather than a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes no circular derivation. Equations (2) and (3) are proposed linear models for latency and energy as functions of algorithm type, dataset characteristics, and RAI guardrails. They do not define latency or energy in terms of each other, nor are any coefficients fitted and then relabeled as predictions. The paper explicitly states in Section 5.1 that 'this study presents theoretical equations without empirical validation' and in Section 5.2 that 'experimentation is necessary to validate and quantify the coefficients.' Thus the central claim is a framework proposal, not a fitted prediction. The functional forms (logarithmic latency scaling, linear energy scaling) are acknowledged assumptions, not imported from self-citations or from a uniqueness theorem. There are no self-citations at all. Concerns about whether the equations are accurate or model-agnostic are correctness/validity concerns, not circularity. The paper is honest about its limitations, which further supports a non-circular reading.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on assumed functional forms, additive separability, and a panel of uncalibrated coefficients. There are no invented physical entities, but the model's predictive power is entirely dependent on future coefficient fitting.

free parameters (12)

α (latency intercept)
Intercept in Eq. (2), to be calibrated empirically.
α' (energy intercept)
Intercept in Eq. (3), to be calibrated empirically.
β_A (algorithm-type coefficients for L)
Weights for one-hot encoded classifier type in Eq. (2).
β'_A (algorithm-type coefficients for E)
Weights for one-hot encoded classifier type in Eq. (3).
β_D (dataset-size coefficient for L)
Coefficient for log(n) term in Eq. (2).
β'_D (dataset-size coefficient for E)
Coefficient for n term in Eq. (3).
γ_D (feature dimensionality coefficient for L)
Coefficient for p in Eq. (2).
γ'_D (feature dimensionality coefficient for E)
Coefficient for p in Eq. (3).
δ_D (dataset type coefficient for L)
Coefficient for t in Eq. (2).
δ'_D (dataset type coefficient for E)
Coefficient for t in Eq. (3).
φ_G,i (RAI guardrail coefficients for L)
Coefficients for guardrail variables g_i in Eq. (2).
φ'_G,i (RAI guardrail coefficients for E)
Coefficients for guardrail variables g_i in Eq. (3).

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper Latency scales logarithmically with dataset size and energy scales linearly with dataset size.
Eqs. (2) and (3) in Section 4.3 assume these shapes without derivation; Section 5.1 calls them assumptions.
ad hoc to paper All variables combine additively with no interaction terms.
Equations (2) and (3) are additive linear models, an assumption about the structure of latency and energy.
domain assumption A single set of coefficients generalizes across classifiers, datasets, and hardware.
The 'model-agnostic' claim relies on coefficient portability, which is untested.
ad hoc to paper RAI guardrails can be represented as binary on/off states with an optional continuous intensity score that adds linearly to the outputs.
Section 4.2 describes the guardrail encoding; the added computational cost is modeled as additive terms without empirical grounding.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Latenrgy: Model Agnostic Latency and Energy Consumption Prediction for Binary Classifiers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UVAJ67YX

@misc{pith2026241219241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Latenrgy: Model Agnostic Latency and Energy Consumption Prediction for Binary Classifiers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UVAJ67YX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19241}
}

read the original abstract

Machine learning systems increasingly drive innovation across scientific fields and industry, yet challenges in compute overhead, specifically during inference, limit their scalability and sustainability. Responsible AI guardrails, essential for ensuring fairness, transparency, and privacy, further exacerbate these computational demands. This study addresses critical gaps in the literature, chiefly the lack of generalized predictive techniques for latency and energy consumption, limited cross-comparisons of classifiers, and unquantified impacts of RAI guardrails on inference performance. Using Theory Construction Methodology, this work constructed a model-agnostic theoretical framework for predicting latency and energy consumption in binary classification models during inference. The framework synthesizes classifier characteristics, dataset properties, and RAI guardrails into a unified analytical instrument. Two predictive equations are derived that capture the interplay between these factors while offering generalizability across diverse classifiers. The proposed framework provides foundational insights for designing efficient, responsible ML systems. It enables researchers to benchmark and optimize inference performance and assists practitioners in deploying scalable solutions. Finally, this work establishes a theoretical foundation for balancing computational efficiency with ethical AI principles, paving the way for future empirical validation and broader applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

CARB: A Characterization-Guided Framework for CNN Inference Cost Prediction and Deployment Screening
cs.AR 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A characterization of 13,419 CNN configurations on two GPUs reveals target-dependent transferability, and the CARB ensemble predicts energy, latency, and memory with R2 around 0.99 while screening out over 90% of candidates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

, Al-Sabaawi, A

alzubaidi2023towards APACrefauthors Alzubaidi, L. , Al-Sabaawi, A. , Bai, J. , Dukhan, A. , Alkenani, A H. , Al-Asadi, A. others APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Towards Risk-Free Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: Significance and Requirements Towards risk-free trustworthy artificial intelligence: Significance and requirements . International Journal of Intelli...

work page 2023
[2]

, Larson, J

angwin2022machine APACrefauthors Angwin, J. , Larson, J. , Mattu, S. \ Kirchner, L. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Machine bias Machine bias . Ethics of data and analytics Ethics of data and analytics \ ( \ 254--264). Auerbach Publications

work page 2022
[3]

, Gomes, H M

cassales2022balancing APACrefauthors Cassales, G. , Gomes, H M. , Bifet, A. , Pfahringer, B. \ Senger, H. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Balancing performance and energy consumption of bagging ensembles for the classification of data streams in edge computing Balancing performance and energy consumption of bagging ensembles for the classification of data streams...

work page 2022
[4]

APACrefauthors \ 2022

dastin2022amazon APACrefauthors Dastin, J. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women Amazon scraps secret ai recruiting tool that showed bias against women . Ethics of data and analytics Ethics of data and analytics \ ( \ 296--299). Auerbach Publications

work page 2022
[5]

, Mart \' nez-Plumed, F

desislavov2021compute APACrefauthors Desislavov, R. , Mart \' nez-Plumed, F. \ Hern \'a ndez-Orallo, J. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Compute and energy consumption trends in deep learning inference Compute and energy consumption trends in deep learning inference . arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05472

arXiv 2021
[6]

APACrefauthors \ 1978

dubin1978theory APACrefauthors Dubin, R. APACrefauthors \ 1978 . Theory Building Theory building . The Free Press

work page 1978
[7]

, Esperan c a, P M

elesedy2024lora APACrefauthors Elesedy, H. , Esperan c a, P M. , Oprea, S V. \ Ozay, M. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Lora-guard: Parameter-efficient guardrail adaptation for content moderation of large language models Lora-guard: Parameter-efficient guardrail adaptation for content moderation of large language models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02987

arXiv 2024
[8]

, Cowls, J

floridi2018ai4people APACrefauthors Floridi, L. , Cowls, J. , Beltrametti, M. , Chatila, R. , Chazerand, P. , Dignum, V. others APACrefauthors \ 2018 . AI4People—an ethical framework for a good AI society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations Ai4people—an ethical framework for a good ai society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recom...

work page 2018

Show all 31 references

[9]

\ Hellbr \"u ck, H

hauschild2022latency APACrefauthors Hauschild, S. \ Hellbr \"u ck, H. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Latency and Energy Consumption of Convolutional Neural Network Models from IoT Edge Perspective Latency and energy consumption of convolutional neural network models from iot edge per...

2022
[10]

henderson2020towards APACrefauthors Henderson, P. , Hu, J. , Romoff, J. , Brunskill, E. , Jurafsky, D. \ Pineau, J. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Towards the systematic reporting of the energy and carbon footprints of machine learning Towards the systematic reporting of the energy a...

2020
[11]

, Wortman Vaughan, J

holstein2019improving APACrefauthors Holstein, K. , Wortman Vaughan, J. , Daum \'e III, H. , Dudik, M. \ Wallach, H. APACrefauthors \ 2019 . Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need? Improving fairness in machine learning systems: Wha...

2019
[12]

\ Haenlein, M

kaplan2019siri APACrefauthors Kaplan, A. \ Haenlein, M. APACrefauthors \ 2019 . Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence Siri, siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? on t...

2019
[13]

, Badshah, S

khan2022ethics APACrefauthors Khan, A A. , Badshah, S. , Liang, P. , Waseem, M. , Khan, B. , Ahmad, A. Akbar, M A. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Ethics of AI: A systematic literature review of principles and challenges Ethics of ai: A systematic literature review of principles and c...

2022
[14]

, Liu, Y

li2024towards APACrefauthors Li, P. , Liu, Y. , Yang, J. \ Ren, S. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Towards Socially and Environmentally Responsible AI Towards socially and environmentally responsible ai . arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05176

2024 arXiv
[15]

, Wang, Y

liu2022trustworthy APACrefauthors Liu, H. , Wang, Y. , Fan, W. , Liu, X. , Li, Y. , Jain, S. Tang, J. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Trustworthy ai: A computational perspective Trustworthy ai: A computational perspective . ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 14 1 1--59

2022
[16]

, Zhu, L

lu2024responsible APACrefauthors Lu, Q. , Zhu, L. , Xu, X. , Whittle, J. , Zowghi, D. \ Jacquet, A. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Responsible AI pattern catalogue: A collection of best practices for AI governance and engineering Responsible ai pattern catalogue: A collection of best...

2024
[17]

APACrefauthors \ 2017

lundberg2017unified APACrefauthors Lundberg, S. APACrefauthors \ 2017 . A unified approach to interpreting model predictions A unified approach to interpreting model predictions . arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.07874

2017 arXiv
[18]

, Wang, H

mallik2023epam APACrefauthors Mallik, A. , Wang, H. , Xie, J. , Chen, D. \ Han, K. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . EPAM: A predictive energy model for mobile AI Epam: A predictive energy model for mobile ai . ICC 2023-IEEE International Conference on Communications Icc 2023-ieee inter...

2023
[19]

, Reddi, V J

mattson2020mlperf APACrefauthors Mattson, P. , Reddi, V J. , Cheng, C. , Coleman, C. , Diamos, G. , Kanter, D. others APACrefauthors \ 2020 . MLPerf: An industry standard benchmark suite for machine learning performance Mlperf: An industry standard benchmark suite for machine ...

2020
[20]

, Morstatter, F

mehrabi2021survey APACrefauthors Mehrabi, N. , Morstatter, F. , Saxena, N. , Lerman, K. \ Galstyan, A. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning . ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 54 6 1--35

2021
[21]

mitchell2019model APACrefauthors Mitchell, M. , Wu, S. , Zaldivar, A. , Barnes, P. , Vasserman, L. , Hutchinson, B. Gebru, T. APACrefauthors \ 2019 . Model cards for model reporting Model cards for model reporting . Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, an...

2019
[22]

, Allo, P

mittelstadt2016ethics APACrefauthors Mittelstadt, B D. , Allo, P. , Taddeo, M. , Wachter, S. \ Floridi, L. APACrefauthors \ 2016 . The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate . Big Data & Society 3 2 2053951716679679

2016
[23]

APACrefauthors \ 2023

prem2023ethical APACrefauthors Prem, E. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . From ethical AI frameworks to tools: a review of approaches From ethical ai frameworks to tools: a review of approaches . AI and Ethics 3 3 699--716

2023
[24]

, Ribeiro, M

radclyffe2023assessment APACrefauthors Radclyffe, C. , Ribeiro, M. \ Wortham, R H. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . The assessment list for trustworthy artificial intelligence: A review and recommendations The assessment list for trustworthy artificial intelligence: A review and recomm...

2023
[25]

\ Buolamwini, J

raji2019actionable APACrefauthors Raji, I D. \ Buolamwini, J. APACrefauthors \ 2019 . Actionable auditing: Investigating the impact of publicly naming biased performance results of commercial ai products Actionable auditing: Investigating the impact of publicly naming biased p...

2019
[26]

, Cheng, C

reddi2020mlperf APACrefauthors Reddi, V J. , Cheng, C. , Kanter, D. , Mattson, P. , Schmuelling, G. , Wu, C J. others APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Mlperf inference benchmark Mlperf inference benchmark . 2020 ACM/IEEE 47th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISC...

2020
[27]

Why should i trust you?

ribeiro2016should APACrefauthors Ribeiro, M T. , Singh, S. \ Guestrin, C. APACrefauthors \ 2016 . " Why should i trust you?" Explaining the predictions of any classifier " why should i trust you?" explaining the predictions of any classifier . Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKD...

2016
[28]

, Ganesh, A

strubell2020energy APACrefauthors Strubell, E. , Ganesh, A. \ McCallum, A. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Energy and policy considerations for modern deep learning research Energy and policy considerations for modern deep learning research . Proceedings of the AAAI conference on arti...

2020
[29]

, Rajan, A T R

tschand2024mlperf APACrefauthors Tschand, A. , Rajan, A T R. , Idgunji, S. , Ghosh, A. , Holleman, J. , Kiraly, C. others APACrefauthors \ 2024 . MLPerf Power: Benchmarking the Energy Efficiency of Machine Learning Systems from Microwatts to Megawatts for Sustainable AI Mlperf...

2024 arXiv
[30]

\ Alemzadeh, H

varshney2017safety APACrefauthors Varshney, K R. \ Alemzadeh, H. APACrefauthors \ 2017 . On the safety of machine learning: Cyber-physical systems, decision sciences, and data products On the safety of machine learning: Cyber-physical systems, decision sciences, and data produ...

2017
[31]

APACrefauthors \ 2023

worsdorfer2023eu APACrefauthors W \"o rsd \"o rfer, M. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . The EU’s artificial intelligence act: an ordoliberal assessment The eu’s artificial intelligence act: an ordoliberal assessment . AI and Ethics 1--16

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, Al-Sabaawi, A

alzubaidi2023towards APACrefauthors Alzubaidi, L. , Al-Sabaawi, A. , Bai, J. , Dukhan, A. , Alkenani, A H. , Al-Asadi, A. others APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Towards Risk-Free Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: Significance and Requirements Towards risk-free trustworthy artificial intelligence: Significance and requirements . International Journal of Intelli...

work page 2023

[2] [2]

, Larson, J

angwin2022machine APACrefauthors Angwin, J. , Larson, J. , Mattu, S. \ Kirchner, L. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Machine bias Machine bias . Ethics of data and analytics Ethics of data and analytics \ ( \ 254--264). Auerbach Publications

work page 2022

[3] [3]

, Gomes, H M

cassales2022balancing APACrefauthors Cassales, G. , Gomes, H M. , Bifet, A. , Pfahringer, B. \ Senger, H. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Balancing performance and energy consumption of bagging ensembles for the classification of data streams in edge computing Balancing performance and energy consumption of bagging ensembles for the classification of data streams...

work page 2022

[4] [4]

APACrefauthors \ 2022

dastin2022amazon APACrefauthors Dastin, J. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women Amazon scraps secret ai recruiting tool that showed bias against women . Ethics of data and analytics Ethics of data and analytics \ ( \ 296--299). Auerbach Publications

work page 2022

[5] [5]

, Mart \' nez-Plumed, F

desislavov2021compute APACrefauthors Desislavov, R. , Mart \' nez-Plumed, F. \ Hern \'a ndez-Orallo, J. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Compute and energy consumption trends in deep learning inference Compute and energy consumption trends in deep learning inference . arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05472

arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

APACrefauthors \ 1978

dubin1978theory APACrefauthors Dubin, R. APACrefauthors \ 1978 . Theory Building Theory building . The Free Press

work page 1978

[7] [7]

, Esperan c a, P M

elesedy2024lora APACrefauthors Elesedy, H. , Esperan c a, P M. , Oprea, S V. \ Ozay, M. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Lora-guard: Parameter-efficient guardrail adaptation for content moderation of large language models Lora-guard: Parameter-efficient guardrail adaptation for content moderation of large language models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02987

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

, Cowls, J

floridi2018ai4people APACrefauthors Floridi, L. , Cowls, J. , Beltrametti, M. , Chatila, R. , Chazerand, P. , Dignum, V. others APACrefauthors \ 2018 . AI4People—an ethical framework for a good AI society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations Ai4people—an ethical framework for a good ai society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recom...

work page 2018