Beyond FLOPs: Energy-Aware Knowledge Distillation for Sustainable LLMs on Code-Related Task

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to optimize code for performance. This practice often assumes that improvements in execution speed naturally translate into overall lower energy consumption. We challenge this assumption empirically by measuring whether performance-optimized code produced by LLM self-refinement pipelines is also energy-efficient relative to canonical human reference solutions, and whether the energy cost of the optimization process can be offset by subsequent execution-time savings. We evaluate 11 open-source models across four decoding configurations on all 1,000 problems of EffiBench, a state-of-the-art performance benchmark, while collecting per-process, hardware-level energy measurements throughout. Inference energy spans 0.79 to 8.68 MJ across model-variant pairs, which is roughly equivalent to the energy of 250 to 2800 GPT-4.1 queries. Limiting the maximum number of output tokens has the largest impact, reducing energy use by up to 69% compared to the default configuration. On the execution side, 42 of 44 configurations produce code that consumes more energy per problem than the canonical human reference, with overheads ranging from +4% to +886%. The two exceptions achieve only marginal gains, with break-even points on the order of 10^6 to 10^7 executions. Mixture-of-Experts architectures consume substantially less inference energy than equivalently-sized dense models without sacrificing correctness, making architectural choice a more consequential sustainability lever than decoding parameters. Performance optimization and energy efficiency are not always aligned goals: LLM self-refinement consistently produces faster-seeking but energy-heavier code relative to what a human engineer would write. All artifacts are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23598170.

The rise in deployment of large language models has driven a surge in GPU demand and datacenter scaling, raising concerns about electricity use, grid stress, and the impacts of modern AI workloads. Distillation is often promoted as one of the most effective paths to obtain cheaper, more efficient models, yet these claims rarely account for the full end-to-end energy and resource costs, including crucial teacher-side workloads such as data generation, logit caching, and evaluation. We present a comprehensive energy accounting framework that measures the complete computational cost of distillation pipelines via detailed stage-wise tracking of GPU device power consumption. In our experiments, we separate and log empirical energy use across distinct phases and systematically measure the energy and emissions of two common distillation methods: the classic logit-based knowledge distillation and synthetic-data supervised fine-tuning, constructing energy-quality Pareto frontiers that expose the previously ignored costs. From these measurements and analyses, we derive practical design rules for selecting distillation methods and hyperparameters under energy and budget constraints, and release an open-source measurement harness and accounting protocol to provide a standardized foundation for comparable, reproducible distillation research, explicitly accountable for complete pipeline energy impact.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in software engineering, including agentic systems that coordinate multiple agents, but impose higher computational and environmental costs. In this paper, we present a comprehensive empirical study of agentic LLM systems across five software engineering tasks: code generation, technical debt identification, code vulnerability detection, log parsing, and log analysis. For each task, we compare LLM configurations that range from a non-agentic single-query baseline to multi-agent workflows, using six open-weight LLMs, two prompt strategies, and three hardware platforms. We assess each configuration in terms of accuracy, inference latency, and energy consumption. Our results reveal substantial trade-offs between agentic complexity and energy efficiency: multi-agent designs consume on average 6.36$\times$ as much energy and run 6.07$\times$ as long as the non-agentic baseline, with worst-case slowdowns of up to 160$\times$ for individual task--hardware pairs. Accuracy gains from additional agents are limited and task-specific: multi-agent improves average vulnerability-detection accuracy, but lightweight non-agentic and single-agent configurations still dominate the Pareto front, accounting for 59 of 66 Pareto-optimal configurations. Model and prompt choice act as task-specific levers whose effective direction varies between tasks rather than as global defaults. We translate these findings into design guidelines for sustainable, task-aware LLM-based development tools.