MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941028033 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2911921

Estimating Occupancy Using Interactive Learning With a Sensor Environment: Real-Time Experiments

2019· article· en· W2941028033 on OpenAlexaff
Manar Amayri, Stéphane Ploix, Nizar Bouguila, Fréderic Würtz

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsOccupancyComputer scienceEnergy consumptionBuilding automationClassifier (UML)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceReal-time computingMachine learningEngineeringArchitectural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interactive learning plays a key role in extending the occupant behavior implementation toward smart buildings. Efficient feedbacks can be obtained from the end user by involving occupants and increasing their awareness about energy systems. Working in highly energy-efficient buildings can be a great opportunity, but users need to feel empowered. This means making them aware of the building features and allowing them to manage some of the appliances. In this way, disorientation or annoyance is avoided, and people feel more in control. This paper proposes a solution to interact with occupants to estimate the number of occupants. A novel way of supervised learning is analyzed to estimate the occupancy in a room where actual occupancy is interactively requested to occupants when it is the most relevant to limit the number of interactions. Occupancy estimation algorithm relies on machine learning; it uses information gathered from occupants with the measurements collected from common sensors, for instance, motion detection, power consumption, and CO2 concentration. Two different classifiers are investigated for occupancy estimation with interactions: a decision tree C4.5 and a parameterized rule-based classifier. In this paper, the question of when interacting with occupants is investigated. This approach avoids the usage of a camera to determine the actual occupancy. A complete real-time interaction environment has been developed and is used to estimate the occupancy in an office case study. The graphical user interface has been designed to carry out a real-time experiment.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207