Benchmarking Smart Meter Data Analytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smart electricity meters have been replacing conventional meters worldwide, enabling automated collection of fine-grained (every 15 minutes or hourly) consumption data. A variety of smart meter analytics algorithms and applications have been proposed, mainly in the smart grid literature, but the focus thus far has been on what can be done with the data rather than how to do it efficiently. In this paper, we examine smart meter analytics from a software per-formance perspective. First, we propose a performance benchmark that includes common data analysis tasks on smart meter data. Sec-ond, since obtaining large amounts of smart meter data is diffi-cult due to privacy issues, we present an algorithm for generat-ing large realistic data sets from a small seed of real data. Third, we implement the proposed benchmark using five representative platforms: a traditional numeric computing platform (Matlab), a relational DBMS with a built-in machine learning toolkit (Post-greSQL/MADLib), a main-memory column store (“System C”), and two distributed data processing platforms (Hive and Spark). We compare the five platforms in terms of application development effort and performance on a multi-core machine as well as a cluster of 16 commodity servers. We have made the proposed benchmark and data generator freely available online. 1.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".