MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990106565 · doi:10.1145/3363459.3363529

Evaluating the Feasibility of Reusing Pre-trained Thermal Models in the Residential Sector

2019· article· en· W2990106565 on OpenAlexaffabout
Md Monir Hossain, Tianyu Zhang, Omid Ardakanian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermostatReuseComputer scienceThermal massEnergy consumptionBuilding automationHome automationArtificial neural networkBuilding modelThermal comfortSimulationEngineeringThermalMachine learningTelecommunicationsMechanical engineeringMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modelling temperature dynamics of a building is necessary to develop control mechanisms for reducing energy consumption of heating and cooling equipment. While Resistance-Capacitance (RC) models can accurately explain how the indoor temperature changes over time, building such models requires the knowledge of the building insulation and thermal mass, which is not readily available for most residential buildings in operation today. In the absence of this information, model parameters can be estimated from coarsegrained data collected by smart thermostats. In this paper we train a Bayesian neural network to establish the RC model for a home equipped with a smart thermostat, and investigate how to reuse this model to predict the temperature inside another home which may not be equipped with a smart thermostat. Leveraging data from ecobee smart thermostats installed in over 4,000 homes in Canada, we validate that a small number of pre-trained neural network models is enough to develop a sufficiently accurate RC model for any home across the country and that this model outperforms a seasonal time-series model that is built using the same amount of data.

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)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207