PreprintCited by 413Green IT and SustainabilityEnergy Efficiency in ComputingEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

Quantifying the Carbon Emissions of Machine Learning

Open access
Lacoste, Alexandre, Luccioni, Alexandra, Schmidt, Victor, Dandres, Thomas·2019·arXiv

Abstract

From an environmental standpoint, there are a few crucial aspects of training a neural network that have a major impact on the quantity of carbon that it emits. These factors include: the location of the server used for training and the energy grid that it uses, the length of the training procedure, and even the make and model of hardware on which the training takes place. In order to approximate these emissions, we present our Machine Learning Emissions Calculator, a tool for our community to better understand the environmental impact of training ML models. We accompany this tool with an explanation of the factors cited above, as well as concrete actions that individual practitioners and organizations can take to mitigate their carbon emissions.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1910.09700

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Machine Learning Emissions Calculator estimates the carbon footprint of GPU compute through specifying hardware type, hours used, cloud provider, and region.

    “the 'Machine Learning Emissions Calculator' for estimating the carbon footprint of GPU compute through specifying hardware type, hours used, cloud provider, and region [12], Anthony et al. [3]”
  • The estimation methods of prior work may be inaccurate, particularly in experiments that utilize combined CPU and GPU workloads heavily.

    “In Section 5, we discuss how while the estimation methods of these works provide some understanding of carbon and energy impacts, nuances in the estimation methods may make them inaccurate-particularly in experiments which utilize combined CPU and GPU workloads heavily.”
  • Some GPUs have substantially higher efficiency in terms of FLOPS per watt of power usage compared to others.

    “Some GPUs have substantially higher efficiency in terms of floating point operations per second (FLOPS) per watt of power usage compared to others (Lacoste et al., 2019).”
  • Estimations of carbon footprint were conducted using the Machine Learning Impact calculator presented in [66].

    “Estimations were conducted using the Machine Learning Impact calculator presented in [66].”
  • Total emissions for pre-training and finetuning on fMoW Sentinel are estimated to be 109.44 kg CO2 eq.

    “For a model pre-trained and finetuned on fMoW Sentinel dataset, total emissions are estimated to be 109.44 kg CO 2 eq.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lacoste, A., Luccioni, A., Schmidt, V., & Dandres, T.
Affiliations
Polytechnique Montréal (CA)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2981540061
Cited by
408
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 139 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 16 · 2018: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Green IT and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Energy Efficiency in Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Keywords
CO2 emissions, machine learning training, environmental impact of AI, neural network training, power grid, training duration, carbon mitigation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review