Carbon-Aware Routing for Function Calling in Edge-Cloud LLM Systems

# Carbon-Aware Routing for Function Calling in Edge-Cloud LLM Systems
Source: [https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559)
Aikaterini Maria Panteleaki[https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7827-8875](https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7827-8875), Varatheepan Paramanayakam[https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1982-9693](https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1982-9693), Spyros Tragoudas[https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2575-3588](https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2575-3588), Iraklis Anagnostopoulos[https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0985-3045](https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0985-3045)Affiliation:Affiliation:School of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering Southern Illinois University Carbondale aikaterinimaria\.panteleaki@siu\.edu, varatheepan@siu\.edu, spyros@siu\.edu, iraklis\.anagno@siu\.edu

###### Abstract

Large Language Models \(LLMs\) with function\-calling capabilities are becoming critical for modern agentic AI systems\. Nevertheless, current deployments typically route inferences to powerful cloud\-based models, incurring significant energy use and carbon emissions\. We address this sustainability challenge with a carbon\-aware routing framework that distributes function\-calling queries across a three\-tier edge\-cloud architecture, combining edge and cloud LLMs on heterogeneous hardware\. At its core, a lightweight k\-NN predictor operating in a unified semantic\-lexical embedding space estimates query\-specific accuracy, delay, and power consumption on each edge tier\. These predictions are then combined with real\-time grid carbon intensity to route every query to the lowest\-emission tier capable of executing it successfully\. Evaluated on state\-of\-the\-art function\-calling benchmarks and LLM families, our framework matches cloud\-level accuracy while reducing operational carbon emissions by4×4\\timeson average\.

###### Index Terms:

Sustainable Computing, Function\-calling LLMs, Carbon\-Aware Routing

## IIntroduction

Large Language Models \(LLMs\) have evolved from text generation systems to sophisticated decision\-making agents with interactive tool\-use capabilities\. The key capability enabling this evolution isfunction calling, the process by which an agent autonomously selects and invokes specific functions from available tools enabling it to: \(i\) access external data sources, \(ii\) execute computations beyond the LLM’s parametric knowledge, and \(iii\) interact with software systems and APIs\. Function calling serves as a fundamental building block of modern agentic AI systems\[[1](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib11)\], but its complexity and accuracy requirements push deployments toward an expensive default of routing inferences to powerful cloud\-based models, regardless of how trivial the task itself is\[[2](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib7)\]\. Prior work on sustainability\-aware LLM execution at the edge has shown that dynamic tool selection and carbon\-aware power adaptation can reduce emissions by up to 52% on edge hardware\[[3](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib8)\]\.

The environmental impact of this approach is substantial\. ChatGPT alone serves over 2\.5 billion queries per day, consuming approximately 850 megawatt\-hours, enough to fully charge 14,000 electric vehicles\[[4](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib10)\]\. Annually, ChatGPT’s energy consumption reaches 310 gigawatt\-hours, roughly equivalent to powering 29,000 U\.S\. homes for a whole year\. Including competitors like Gemini and Claude, the combined annual power draw reaches 15 terawatt\-hours, similar to the output of two nuclear reactors\[[4](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib10)\]\. Crucially, inference is now the dominant contributor to this footprint, as reports from cloud providers indicate that inference accounts for 80\-90% of total Machine Learning \(ML\) cloud compute demand and 60% of ML\-related energy consumption\[[5](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib2)\]\. As function\-calling agents continue to grow, the always\-cloud default will only amplify this trend\.

TABLE I:Success Rate on BFCL V2\[[1](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib11)\], Energy Consumption per query and estimated Carbon Emissions for LLMsEdge\-based solutions offer a promising alternative\. As shown in Table[I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.T1), edge\-deployed models like Llama3\.1\-8B consume approximately 25×\\timesless energy per query than their 70B cloud counterparts, with proportional savings in carbon emissions\[[7](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib12),[6](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib13)\]\. Accuracy, however, remains the bottleneck\. On Berkeley Function\-Calling Leaderboard V2 \(BFCL V2\)\[[1](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib11)\]Llama3\.1\-70B achieves 97\.8% success rate, while the smaller edge variants Llama3\.1\-8B and Llama3\.2\-1B reach only 56\.5% and 13\.6% respectively\. This accuracy gap, however, is not uniform across queries\. Many function\-calling tasks, such as single\-tool invocations, simple retrieval, or structured queries, do not require the reasoning capabilities of large\-scale models and can be served correctly by small edge models\. This inherent heterogeneity creates a design opportunity:*Can we dynamically allocate function\-calling queries across heterogeneous edge–cloud tiers to minimize carbon footprint while maintaining task\-level correctness?*While carbon\-aware and power\-efficient execution has been explored for DNN workloads through attention\-based multi\-DNN management and carbon\-driven power capping on edge servers\[[8](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib19),[9](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib18)\], extending such principles to LLM function calling remains an open challenge\.

Existing LLM routers\[[10](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib4),[11](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib5),[12](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib3)\]dispatch queries across heterogeneous models to balance accuracy against dollar cost, but ignore the underlying hardware, power and carbon intensity of the electricity grid powering each tier\. Without these signals, even routers that successfully shift load off the cloud capture only part of the available carbon savings, since they cannot identify the greenest tier for a given query at a given moment\. In this paper, we treat function\-calling inference as a Performance–Power–Carbon \(PPC\) constrained routing problem and present a carbon\-aware framework that solves it\. Queries are distributed across a three\-tier edge–cloud architecture including tiny/micro LLMs \(1–4B\) on a low\-power edge SoC, small LLMs \(7–12B\) on an edge accelerator, and large LLMs \(\>\>100B\) hosted in the cloud\. The framework is developed within NSF project 2324854 on sustainable AI\[[13](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib21),[14](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib20)\], with main contributions:

1Analytic Performance Modeling\.We develop a lightweight k\-NN regression model operating in a unified semantic\-lexical embedding space that acts as an analytic predictor of per\-tier probability of correct execution, inference delay, and carbon footprint\. By learning from historical executions, this model enables rapid design\-space exploration without invoking the underlying LLMs\.2Carbon\-Aware Routing Policy\.Using these predictions, we formulate a routing strategy that selects the most carbon\-efficient tier satisfying task\-level accuracy constraints, while adapting to real\-time grid carbon intensity\.3Comprehensive Evaluation\.Through experiments on state\-of\-the\-art function\-calling benchmarks, we show that our approach preserves cloud\-level success rates while reducing carbon emissions by an average of4×4\\timesand up to8×8\\timesfor simpler queries, demonstrating the effectiveness of PPC\-aware tiered inference\.

## IIMethodology

![Refer to caption](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559v1/overview.png)

Fig\. 1:Carbon\-aware routing framework architectureSystem ArchitectureFig\.[1](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S2.F1)provides an overview of our framework\. We consider a three\-tier heterogeneous edge–cloud architecture, where each tier represents a distinct combination of model capability and hardware platform, providing different trade\-offs between accuracy and carbon efficiency:

1Tier 1\(Tiny/Micro LM\) deploys models with 1\-4B parameters on resource\-constrained edge devices, consuming the lowest energy per query, but offering limited reasoning capabilities for complex tasks,2Tier 2\(Small LM\) hosts models with 7\-12B parameters on edge infrastructure, offering higher accuracy than Tier 1 with energy consumption well below cloud levels, and3Tier 3\(Large LM\) runs cloud\-based models with more than 100B parameters deployed on datacenter infrastructure, delivering state\-of\-the\-art accuracy at the highest environmental cost\.

At runtime, tier selection is performed by

\(i\)a performance predictor and\(ii\)a carbon\-aware router

, both shown in Fig\.[1](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S2.F1)\. The Performance Predictor estimates, for each query\-tier pair on the edge, the probability of correct execution, the inference delay, and the power consumption\. The Carbon\-Aware Router combines these predictions with the real\-time carbon intensity of each tier’s grid and assigns every query to the lowest\-emission tier whose predicted success probability satisfies a configurable accuracy threshold, falling back to the cloud only when no edge tier qualifies\.

Performance PredictionA key requirement for carbon\-aware routing is the ability to estimate, prior to execution, how a query will behave on each edge tier\. For each pair of queryqiq\_\{i\}and edge tierτ∈\{Tier 1,Tier 2\}\\tau\\in\\\{\\text\{Tier~1\},\\text\{Tier~2\}\\\}, our performance predictor outputs the probability of correct executionP​\(Success​\(qi,τ\)\)P\(\{\\text\{Success\}\}\(q\_\{i\},\\tau\)\), the inference delayD​\(qi,τ\)\{\\text\{D\}\}\(q\_\{i\},\\tau\), and the power consumptionw​\(qi,τ\)\{\\text\{w\}\}\(q\_\{i\},\\tau\)\. Together, these three quantities determine the expected carbon footprint of routing the query to that tier\.

The predictor operates through an offline calibration phase, where each calibration query is encoded into a semantic\-lexical embedding space\. This space combines semantic embeddings, capturing the linguistic and structural content of the query, along with lexical complexity scores that measure low\-frequency word usage, a signal shown to correlate with how LLMs perceive query difficulty\[[15](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib15)\]\. For each calibration query, we record the binary Success outcome against ground truth, together with the measured inference delay and power on the target hardware\. Unlike other generative AI tasks, function calling does not tolerate partial correctness, since invoking the wrong tool or missing a required one causes the entire response to fail, and the binary Success metric reflects this\.

At runtime, each incoming query is mapped into the embedding space\. A k\-Nearest Neighbor \(k\-NN\) regression model identifies thekkmost similar calibration queries using cosine distance, and produces distance\-weighted predictions of success probability, delay and power for each edge tier\. Using the same neighborhood for all three quantities ensures that the predictions remain mutually consistent, capturing joint correlations such as the tendency of complex queries to exhibit both reduced accuracy and increased latency on tiny models\[[16](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib16)\]\. Unlike ML routing models, which require training and risk overfitting, our k\-NN is non\-parametric, requires no training and incurs negligible runtime overhead\.

Carbon\-Aware RoutingTo compute the carbon cost of each routing decision, we combine the predicted delay and power with the real\-time carbon intensity of each tier’s grid\. The carbon footprint of executing queryqiq\_\{i\}on tierτ\\tauis:

CF​\(qi,τ\)=CIτ⋅D​\(qi,τ\)⋅w​\(qi,τ\)\\text\{CF\}\(q\_\{i\},\\tau\)=\\text\{CI\}\_\{\\tau\}\\cdot\\text\{D\}\(q\_\{i\},\\tau\)\\cdot\\text\{w\}\(q\_\{i\},\\tau\)\(1\)whereCIτ\\text\{CI\}\_\{\\tau\}is the real\-time carbon intensity of the grid powering tierτ\\tau, measured ingCO2/kWh\\mathrm\{gCO\_\{2\}\}/\\mathrm\{kWh\}, whileD​\(qi,τ\)\\text\{D\}\(q\_\{i\},\\tau\)andw​\(qi,τ\)\\text\{w\}\(q\_\{i\},\\tau\)are the predicted inference delay and power consumption obtained from the performance predictor\.

The routing policy dynamically assigns each query to the most carbon\-efficient tier capable of successful execution\. We first identify the edge tiers whose predicted Success probability satisfies the minimum accuracy threshold,P⁡\(Success​\(qi,τ\)\)≥θP\(\{\\text\{Success\}\}\(q\_\{i\},\\tau\)\)\\geq\\theta, and among them select the one with the minimum estimated carbon footprint\. If no edge tier qualifies, the query is routed to Tier 3:

τi∗=\{argminτ∈\{Tier 1, Tier 2\}CF​\(qi,τ\),if​∃τ:P⁡\(Success\)≥θTier 3,otherwise\\tau\_\{i\}^\{\*\}=\\begin\{cases\}\\displaystyle\\argmin\_\{\\tau\\in\\\{\\text\{Tier 1, Tier 2\}\\\}\}\\text\{CF\}\(q\_\{i\},\\tau\),&\\text\{if \}\\exists\\,\\ \\tau:P\(\\text\{Success\}\)\\geq\\theta\\\\ \\text\{Tier 3\},&\\text\{otherwise\}\\end\{cases\}\(2\)
This policy ensures that Tier 3 is triggered only when no edge tier meets the accuracy requirement, minimizing the use of the highest\-emission tier\.

## IIIEvaluation

Experimental SetupWe evaluate our framework on two function\-calling benchmarks with distinct characteristics: BFCL V2\[[1](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib11)\]and GeoEngine\[[17](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib6)\]\. BFCL V2 covers tasks from diverse domains such as mathematics, coding, and general reasoning, while GeoEngine targets geospatial applications with elevated difficulty, requiring sequential function calls where each depends on the previous result\. For each benchmark, we employ an 80\-20 split, using 20% of the queries for calibration and 80% for evaluation\. We report Success Rate as the percentage of successfully executed queries against ground truth, and set the accuracy threshold toθ\\theta= 0\.9\.

Real\-time carbon intensity values for each tier’s geographic location are provided by the Electricity Maps API\[[18](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib14)\]\. Tier 1 is deployed on an NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano\[[19](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib17)\], Tier 2 on the more capable NVIDIA Jetson AGX Orin\[[20](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib1)\], and Tier 3 hosts a cloud LLM on H100 SXM GPUs through the Fireworks AI platform\[[21](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib9)\]\. Tier 3 runs GPT\-OSS\-120B from OpenAI across all configurations\. For Tiers 1 and 2, we evaluate our routing policy across four model families to demonstrate generalization: Qwen3 \(1\.7B, 8B\), Gemma3 \(4B, 12B\), Llama3\.1 \(xLAM\-1B, 8B\), and Falcon3 \(3B, 7B\)\.

Baseline Routing MethodsWe compare our carbon\-aware routing framework against five baselines\.

1Cloud Onlyforwards all queries to Tier 3, maximizing accuracy at the highest carbon cost\.2Edge Onlyroutes all queries to Tier 2, prioritizing local execution for carbon reduction, at the cost of accuracy\.3TensorOpera\[[10](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib4)\]implements a multi\-model router optimizing for accuracy and cost\. It serves as our carbon\-unaware counterpart, to quantify the gains from carbon awareness\.4HybridLLM\[[11](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib5)\]uses a learned two\-way router to assign each query to either a small or large model\. We adapt it to route between Tier 2 and 3, isolating the carbon savings of additionally exploiting Tier 1\.5Less\-is\-More\[[12](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib3)\]optimizes function\-calling efficiency on edge devices by dynamically reducing the available tool set, to match query complexity\. We restrict its deployment to Tier 2, since it was designed as a single\-device optimization rather than a multi\-tier router\.

Tier 3Tier 2Tier 1

9\.8%47\.8%42\.4%3\.3%67\.4%29\.3%2\.2%77\.2%20\.7%8\.7%72\.8%18\.5%67\.4%29\.3%3\.3%88\.0%12\.0%91\.3%6\.5%2\.2%88\.9%11\.1%Qwen3Gemma3Llama3\.1Falcon3OursTensorOpera\(a\)GeoEngine\[[17](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib6)\]benchmark4\.3%68\.5%27\.2%4\.3%70\.7%25\.0%38\.0%33\.7%28\.3%5\.4%60\.9%33\.7%45\.7%29\.3%25\.0%67\.4%20\.7%12\.0%73\.9%19\.6%6\.5%44\.6%37\.0%18\.5%Qwen3Gemma3Llama3\.1Falcon3OursTensorOpera\(b\)BFCL V2\[[1](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib11)\]benchmark
Fig\. 2:Query Distribution across three\-tier architecture comparing our framework and TensorOpera\[[10](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib4)\]Cloud OnlyEdge OnlyTensorOpera\[[10](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib4)\]HybridLLM\[[11](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib5)\]Less\-is\-More\[[12](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib3)\]Ours

020406080100Success Rate \(%\)0\.00\.20\.40\.60\.81\.0Carbon per SuccessQwen3Gemma3Llama3\.1Falcon30\.00\.20\.40\.60\.81\.0Carbon FootprintQwen3Gemma3Llama3\.1Falcon30\.00\.40\.81\.21\.62\.0Inference Delay

\(a\)BFCL V2\[[1](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib11)\]
020406080100Success Rate \(%\)0\.00\.20\.40\.60\.81\.0Carbon per SuccessQwen3Gemma3Llama3\.1Falcon30\.00\.20\.40\.60\.81\.0Carbon FootprintQwen3Gemma3Llama3\.1Falcon30\.00\.40\.81\.21\.62\.0Inference Delay

\(b\)GeoEngine\[[17](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#bib.bib6)\]

Fig\. 3:Performance comparison on BFCL V2 and GeoEngine: Success Rate \(%\), Normalized Carbon Footprint, Carbon\-per\-Success, and Normalized Inference Delay\. All normalized metrics use Cloud Only as the reference\.Results DiscussionFigure[2](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F2)shows how each method splits queries across tiers for both benchmarks\. For GeoEngine, which requires complex sequential function calling, our carbon\-aware framework distributes queries across all three tiers\. For instance, with Qwen3 our method routes 42\.4% to Tier 3, 47\.8% to Tier 2 and 9\.8% to Tier 1, exploiting edge resources even for this challenging dataset\. The Llama3\.1 configuration is more cloud\-heavy at 77\.2%, but still executes 22\.8% on the edge\. In contrast, TensorOpera routes the vast majority of queries to Tier 3, ranging from 67\.4% for Qwen3 to 91\.3% for Llama3\.1 prioritizing accuracy at increased carbon cost\. On the simpler BFCL V2 benchmark, differences become more prominent\. Our framework shifts aggressively to the edge, with Qwen3 and Gemma3 routing almost 70% to Tier 1 and only 4\.3% to Tier 3, while TensorOpera continues to send 67\.4% \- 73\.9% to the cloud, despite the lower query complexity\. This contrast demonstrates our router’s ability to dynamically balance accuracy and carbon efficiency according to query complexity, whereas TensorOpera’s accuracy\-cost objective favors cloud, regardless of need\.

Figure[3](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F3)presents success rate, carbon, and delay metrics across all model families for both datasets\. On GeoEngine, our framework achieves 55\.3\-59\.6% success across families, closely matching the cloud\-only baseline at 60\.9%, while reducing carbon footprint by approximately1\.39×1\.39\\timeson average\. Edge\-only achieves the lowest emissions but unacceptably low success rates, confirming that edge\-only execution fails for complex function calling\. TensorOpera and HybridLLM achieve competitive success rates but with elevated carbon cost due to their cloud\-intensive routing, while Less\-is\-More achieves low success rates\. On BFCL V2, our framework achieves 89\.1\-95\.7% success rates with negligible accuracy loss compared to cloud\-only’s 96\.7%, while reaching6×6\\timescarbon reduction on average and up to8×8\\timesfor Falcon3\. The carbon\-per\-success efficiency metric confirms that these gains are not at the expense of correctness, as our framework spends less carbon to produce a correct answer, than any baseline at comparable accuracy\. In contrast, edge\-focused methods like Less\-is\-More show notably low absolute carbon but worse efficiency because of their lower success rate\. Edge\-tier delay efficiency also varies by model family\. Gemma3, for instance, is consistently the slowest on our edge hardware across both benchmarks\. Despite this, our router keeps overall inference delay close to cloud\-only levels, confirming that the carbon savings do not come at the expense of responsiveness\.

## IVConclusion

This work presented a carbon\-aware routing framework for function\-calling LLMs across heterogeneous edge\-cloud tiers\. A lightweight k\-NN predictor estimates per\-query success, delay, and power, guiding the router toward the lowest\-emission tier meeting accuracy requirements\. Experiments on BFCL V2 and GeoEngine benchmarks and four LLM families show that our approach maintains competitive accuracy and inference delay close to cloud levels, while reducing emissions by4×4\\timeson average and up to8×8\\timesfor simpler queries, demonstrating that query\-level heterogeneity, when properly exploited, becomes a practical path to sustainable agentic AI\.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported by grant NSF 2324854\. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation\.

## References

- \[1\]\(2025\)The Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard \(BFCL\): From Tool Use to Agentic Evaluation of Large Language Models\.InForty\-second International Conference on Machine Learning,Cited by:[TABLE I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.T1),[TABLE I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.T1.4),[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p1.1),[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p3.1),[2\(b\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F2.sf2),[2\(b\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F2.sf2.9),[3\(a\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F3.sf1),[3\(a\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F3.sf1.5),[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.p1.1)\.
- \[2\]L\. E\. Erdoganet al\.TinyAgent: Function Calling at the Edge\.InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations,Cited by:[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p1.1)\.
- \[3\]V\. Paramanayakamet al\.\(2025\)CarbonCall: Sustainability\-Aware Function Calling for Large Language Models on Edge Devices\.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504\.20348\.Cited by:[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p1.1)\.
- \[4\]M\. S\. Smith\(2025\)The Hidden Scale Behind Every AI Answer: Billions of Daily Queries are Reshaping Energy and Infrastructure\.IEEE Spectrum\.Cited by:[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p2.1)\.
- \[5\]S\. Luccioniet al\.Power hungry processing: Watts driving the cost of AI deployment?\.InProceedings of the 2024 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency,Cited by:[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p2.1)\.
- \[6\]N\. Jeghamet al\.\(2025\)Note:[How Hungry is AI, Dashboard Overview](https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZjVmOTI0MmMtY2U2Mi00ZTE2LTk2MGYtY2ZjNDMzODZkMjlmIiwidCI6IjQyNmQyYThkLTljY2QtNDI1NS04OTNkLTA2ODZhMzJjMTY4ZCIsImMiOjF9)Cited by:[TABLE I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.T1.5.1.1.4),[TABLE I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.T1.5.1.2.3),[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p3.1)\.
- \[7\]S\. Jang and R\. Morabito\(2025\)Edge\-first language model inference: Models, metrics, and tradeoffs\.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505\.16508\.Cited by:[TABLE I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.T1.5.1.3.3),[TABLE I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.T1.5.1.4.3),[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p3.1)\.
- \[8\]A\. Karatzas and I\. Anagnostopoulos\(2024\)Mapformer: attention\-based multi\-dnn manager for throughput & power co\-optimization on embedded devices\.InProceedings of the 43rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer\-Aided Design,Cited by:[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p3.1)\.
- \[9\]V\. Paramanayakamet al\.\(2025\)Ecomap: sustainability\-driven optimization of multi\-tenant dnn execution on edge servers\.IEEE Transactions on Computers\.Cited by:[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p3.1)\.
- \[10\]D\. Stripeliset al\.TensorOpera Router: A Multi\-Model Router for Efficient LLM Inference\.InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track,Cited by:[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p4.1),[Fig\. 2](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F2),[Fig\. 2](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F2.4),[Fig\. 3](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F3.pic1.3),[item 3](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.I1.ix3)\.
- \[11\]D\. Dinget al\.\(2024\)Hybrid llm: Cost\-efficient and quality\-aware query routing\.International Conference on Learning Representations \(ICLR\)\.Cited by:[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p4.1),[Fig\. 3](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F3.pic1.4),[item 4](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.I1.ix4)\.
- \[12\]V\. Paramanayakamet al\.Less is more: Optimizing function calling for llm execution on edge devices\.In2025 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference \(DATE\),Cited by:[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p4.1),[Fig\. 3](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F3.pic1.5),[item 5](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.I1.ix5)\.
- \[13\]A\. M\. Panteleaki and I\. AnagnostopoulosCarbon\-aware design of dnn accelerators: bridging performance and sustainability\.In2024 IEEE Computer Society Annual Symposium on VLSI \(ISVLSI\),Cited by:[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p4.1)\.
- \[14\]A\. M\. Panteleakiet al\.A vertical approach to designing and managing sustainable heterogeneous edge data centers\.In2025 IEEE Computer Society Annual Symposium on VLSI \(ISVLSI\),Cited by:[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S1.p4.1)\.
- \[15\]A\. Keliouset al\.How do large language models evaluate lexical complexity?\.InProceedings of the 14th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics \(\*SEM 2025\),Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S2.p4.1)\.
- \[16\]D\. Xuet al\.\(2019\)Survey on multi\-output learning\.IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems\.Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S2.p5.1)\.
- \[17\]S\. Singhet al\.GeoLLM\-Engine: A Realistic Environment for Building Geospatial Copilots\.InCVPR 2024 EarthVision Workshop,Cited by:[2\(a\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F2.sf1),[2\(a\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F2.sf1.9),[3\(b\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F3.sf2),[3\(b\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.F3.sf2.5),[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.p1.1)\.
- \[18\]\(2025\)Electricity maps: the world’s most comprehensive electricity data platform\.Note:[https://www\.electricitymaps\.com/](https://www.electricitymaps.com/)Cited by:[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.p2.1)\.
- \[19\]NVIDIA Corporation\(2024\)Jetson Orin Nano Developer Kit Datasheet\.External Links:[Link](https://nvdam.widen.net/s/zkfqjmtds2/jetson-orin-datasheet-nano-developer-kit-3575392-r2)Cited by:[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.p2.1)\.
- \[20\]N\. Corporation\(2025\)NVIDIA Jetson Orin\.Note:[https://www\.nvidia\.com/en\-us/autonomous\-machines/embedded\-systems/jetson\-orin/](https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/autonomous-machines/embedded-systems/jetson-orin/)Cited by:[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.p2.1)\.
- \[21\]Fireworks AI\(2025\)Fireworks AI — Fastest Inference for Generative AI\.External Links:[Link](https://fireworks.ai/)Cited by:[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.13559#S3.p2.1)\.