ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of model compression techniques for achieving carbon efficient AI.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated indexing in MEDLINE and the Medical Text Indexer (MTI), 2000-2025: a scoping review.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Hallucination-aware learning and latency optimization transformer (HALL-OPT) for real-time edge intelligence.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The growing computational demands of models, such as BERT, have raised concerns about their environmental impact. This study addresses the pressing need for sustainable Artificial Intelligence practices by investigating the efficiency of model compression techniques in reducing the energy consumption and carbon emissions of transformer-based models without compromising performance. Specifically, we applied pruning, knowledge distillation, and quantization to transformer-based models (BERT, DistilBERT, ALBERT, and ELECTRA) using the Amazon Polarity Dataset for sentiment analysis. We also compared the energy efficiency of these compressed models against inherently carbon-efficient transformer models, such as TinyBERT and MobileBERT. To evaluate each model's energy consumption and carbon emissions, we utilized the open-source tool CodeCarbon. Our findings indicate that applying model compression techniques resulted in a reduction in energy consumption of 32.097% for BERT with pruning and distillation, [Formula: see text]% for DistilBERT with pruning, 7.12% for ALBERT with quantization, and 23.934% for ELECTRA with pruning and distillation, while maintaining performance metrics within a range of 95.871-99.062% accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and ROC AUC except for ALBERT with quantization. Specifically, BERT with pruning and distillation achieved 95.90% accuracy, 95.90% precision, 95.90% recall, 95.90% F1-score, and 98.87% ROC AUC; DistilBERT with pruning achieved 95.87% accuracy, 95.87% precision, 95.87% recall, 95.87% F1-score, and 99.06% ROC AUC; ELECTRA with pruning and distillation achieved 95.92% accuracy, 95.92% precision, 95.92% recall, 95.92% F1-score, and 99.30% ROC AUC; and ALBERT with quantization achieved 65.44% accuracy, 67.82% precision, 65.44% recall, 63.46% F1-score, and 72.31% ROC AUC, indicating significant performance degradation due to quantization sensitivity in its already compressed architecture. Overall, this demonstrates the potential for sustainable Artificial Intelligence practices using model compression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.