Coupling stochastic occupant models to building performance simulation using the discrete event system specification formalism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When applying occupant models to building performance simulation (BPS), it is common practice to use a discrete-time approach requiring fixed time steps. Consequently, a simulated occupant's decisions do not increase in frequency in response to rapid changes in environmental conditions. Furthermore, as illustrated in this study through the analysis of a discrete-time EnergyPlus simulation, changing the time step between simulation runs may have a dramatic effect on BPS predictions. It is therefore necessary to adhere to a prescribed time step, which may complicate the synchronization of events when models of different domains are coupled. The main contribution of this study is an investigation of the viability of employing the discrete event system specification (DEVS) formalism to represent occupant behaviour without fixed and prescribed time steps. Results indicate that using an adaptive time advancement scheme, the DEVS formalism permits realistic patterns of decision-making while facilitating the coupling of stochastic occupant models with thermal and heating, ventilation and air-conditioning models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it