MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970524678 · doi:10.3390/proceedings2019023006

Predicting Domestic Hot Water Demand Using Machine Learning for Predictive Control Purposes

2019· article· en· W2970524678 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Louis-Gabriel Maltais, Louis Gosselin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Model predictive controlEnergy consumptionArtificial neural networkRecurrent neural networkConsumption (sociology)Predictive modellingComputer scienceWork (physics)Noise (video)Mean squared errorRandom forestMachine learningControl (management)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important part of a building energy consumption is related to the domestic hot water consumption of its occupants. Predictive controllers are often considered as having the potential to reduce the energy consumption of hot water systems. In this work, a recurrent neural network is trained from the measured domestic hot water consumption of a 40 unit residential building in Quebec City, Canada, to predict the future consumption. It is found that the water consumption profile of the building changes from day to day throughout the year and has an important noise component. A predicting model is developed in this work and is obtained by pairing a recurrent neural network to predict the filtered domestic hot water demand with a random forest to predict the noise signal. The evaluated performances indices for the prediction of the next demand are satisfying (i.e., RMSE of 142.02 L/h and R2 of 0.71). In addition, it is found that the predictions made over the following hour using the same predicting model are accurate and could likely be used in a predictive control context.

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 score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207