MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088342779 · doi:10.1145/2528282.2528297

Optimal Personal Comfort Management Using SPOT+

2013· article· en· W2088342779 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Gao, Srinivasan Keshav

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSetpointThermal comfortASHRAE 90.1Model predictive controlComputer scienceScheduleEnergy consumptionSimulationWorkspaceEnergy managementAutomotive engineeringEnergy (signal processing)Control (management)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceRobotMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present SPOT+, a system that allows office workers to optimally balance between heating energy consumption and personal thermal comfort. In prior work, we described SPOT: a smart personal thermal control system based on reactive control [8]. In contrast, the SPOT+ system performs predictive control. Specifically, SPOT+ uses the k-nearest-neighbour algorithm to predict room occupancy and learning-based model predictive control (LBMPC) to predict future room temperature and to compute the optimal sequence of control inputs. This allows the system to schedule future temperature setpoints to optimize an objective function expressed as a linear combination of thermal comfort and energy consumption. We have deployed SPOT+ as well as four other alternative control schemes in an office workspace. We find that SPOT+ reduces energy usage by 60% compared to a fixed-temperature setpoint and reduces personal thermal discomfort from 0.36 to 0.02 (in the ASHRAE comfort scale) compared to SPOT.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207