READ ME File For 'Dataset supporting " Maximising Mobile User Experience through Self-Adaptive Content- and Ambient-aware Display Brightness Scaling "'


Dataset DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/D2837


ReadMe Author: Samuel Isuwa, University of Southampton [ORCID: 0000-0002-2235-4091] [email: s.isuwa@soton.ac.uk]


This dataset supports the publication:

AUTHORS: Samuel Isuwa, David Amos, Amit Kumar Singh, Bashir M. Al-Hashimi, Geoff V. Merrett

TITLE: Maximising Mobile User Experience through Self-Adaptive Content- and Ambient-aware Display Brightness Scaling

JOURNAL: Journal of Systems Architecture


This dataset contains:



'fig2a.csv': Data supporting Fig. 2a. The Mean Rating Scores (MRSs) of content displayed with the different relative content luminance clusters under [0, 100)lx ambient luminance. CL1 - CL5 are the five clusters with varying relative luminances. 

'fig2b.csv': Data supporting Fig. 2b. The Mean Rating Scores (MRSs) of content displayed with the different relative content luminance clusters under [100, 400)lx ambient luminance. CL1 - CL5 are the five clusters with varying relative luminances.

'fig2c.csv': Data supporting Fig. 2c. The Mean Rating Scores (MRSs) of content displayed with the different relative content luminance clusters under [400, 1000)lx ambient luminance. CL1 - CL5 are the five clusters with varying relative luminances.

'fig2d.csv': Data supporting Fig. 2d. The Mean Rating Scores (MRSs) of content displayed with the different relative content luminance clusters under [1000, +∞)lx ambient luminance. CL1 - CL5 are the five clusters with varying relative luminances.

'fig3a.csv': Data supporting Fig. 3a. The Ideal Acceptability (A_I) of content displayed with the different relative content luminance clusters under [0, 100)lx ambient luminance.  

'fig3b.csv': Data supporting Fig. 3b. The Ideal Acceptability (A_I) of content displayed with the different relative content luminance clusters under [100, 400)lx ambient luminance.

'fig3c.csv': Data supporting Fig. 3c. The Ideal Acceptability (A_I) of content displayed with the different relative content luminance clusters under [400, 1000)lx ambient luminance.

'fig3d.csv': Data supporting Fig. 3d. The Ideal Acceptability (A_I) of content displayed with the different relative content luminance clusters under [1000, +∞)lx ambient luminance.

'fig4a.csv': Data supporting Fig. 4a. The Satisfactory Acceptability (A_S) of content displayed with the different relative content luminance clusters under [0, 100)lx ambient luminance.  

'fig4b.csv': Data supporting Fig. 4b. The Satisfactory Acceptability (A_S) of content displayed with the different relative content luminance clusters under [100, 400)lx ambient luminance.

'fig4c.csv': Data supporting Fig. 4c. The Satisfactory Acceptability (A_S) of content displayed with the different relative content luminance clusters under [400, 1000)lx ambient luminance.

'fig4d.csv': Data supporting Fig. 4d. The Satisfactory Acceptability (A_S) of content displayed with the different relative content luminance clusters under [1000, +∞)lx ambient luminance.

'table1.csv': Data supporting Table 1. The Quadratic and Logistics Coefficients for Ideal (I) and Satisfactory (S) Acceptabilities of the Model.

'table2.csv': Data supporting Table 2. The Quadratic and Logistics Model Evaluation for Satisfactory (S) and Ideal (I) Acceptabilities.

'table3.csv': Data supporting Table 3. Energy consumption evaluation across each of the ambient clusters for the four approaches considered. Additionally, the capability of each approach to meet the expected bttery life is evaluated. 

'fig5a.csv': Data supporting Fig. 5a. The average QoE evaluation for the various approaches considered for a real-life scenario with sufficient battery energy under each ambient-light cluster and the average across the clusters.

'fig5b.csv': Data supporting Fig. 5b. The weighted average QoE evaluation based on the percentage of user's daily time spent in each cluster for the three real-scenarios and for the various approaches considered under sufficient battery energy.

'fig6a.csv': Data supporting Fig. 6a. The average QoE evaluation for the various approaches considered for a real-life scenario with insufficient battery energy under each ambient-light cluster and the average across the clusters.

'fig6b.csv': Data supporting Fig. 6b. The weighted average QoE evaluation based on the percentage of user's daily time spent in each cluster for the three real-scenarios and for the various approaches considered under insufficient battery energy, as well as annotated negative battery life indicating the number of hours these approaches failed to meet the expected battery life.

'table4.csv': Data supporting Table 4. Summary of the average QoE (%) and expected battery life index (%) for the considered scenarios and approaches under insufficient battery energy.

'table5.csv': Data supporting Table 5. Comparison of the expected battery life index (%) and the ability to meet the expected battery life for the scenarios and approaches evaluated on the Google Pixel 6 smartphone.



Date of data collection: March 2022 - September 2023


Information about geographic location of data collection:  UK


Licence: CC BY 4.0


Related projects:
PTDF 1526/19


Date that the file was created: October, 2023