Evaluation of Clustering and Time Series Features for Point Type Inference in Smart Building Retrofit
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metadata inference for building automation system (BAS) is an increasingly important topic to promote wider adoption of smart building technologies. Metadata inference is used to automatically discover semantics within the BAS, such as labelling sensors, discover control variable relationships, etc. Clustering analysis has been applied in many previous research studies to achieve faster smart building retrofits through automated or semi-automated BAS point labelling. However, previous research using clustering only used small data sets of two to five buildings. This research examines the effectiveness of this approach on a broader scale with 40 commercial and institutional buildings and more than 65,000 labelled BAS points. Different clustering strategies with varying feature space and clustering algorithms are examined. Furthermore, this study compares which time series features and generation approach may enhance labelling efficiency. Positive results from this study support the effectiveness of applying clustering for point type inference. Results show the complimentary nature of additional time series features when the existing raw metadata from the BAS is less descriptive.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it