MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803766679 · doi:10.1145/3208903.3208940

Data-Driven Models for Building Occupancy Estimation

2018· article· en· W2803766679 on OpenAlexaff
Shadan Golestan, Sepehr Kazemian, Omid Ardakanian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupancyHVACComputer scienceTime seriesData setSeries (stratigraphy)Building automationAir conditioningEnergy consumptionArtificial neural networkSet (abstract data type)Building management systemMean squared errorReal-time computingData miningMachine learningEngineeringStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsArchitectural engineeringControl (management)Electrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The availability of accurate occupancy information from different spaces in a building allows for significant reduction in the energy consumption of heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting systems. This paper investigates the application of particle filters and time series neural networks to inferring the number of occupants of individual rooms from time series data collected by a set of occupancy-indicative sensors. Our approach is purely data driven and does not require developing customized and complex physics-based models to predict the occupancy level of the many rooms in a building. We evaluate the efficacy of the proposed methods on two data sets, one contains measurements of dedicated sensors while the other one contains measurements of HVAC sensors that are commonly available in commercial buildings. Our results indicate that time series neural networks are superior in this application, estimating the number of occupants with a root-mean-squared error of 0.3 and 0.8 in the two data sets with a maximum of 7 and 67 occupants, respectively.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207