Towards a Simulation Framework for Smart Indoor Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of sensor-based applications for smart homes and smart buildings is conditioned upon the deployment configuration of their underlying sensors. Real-world evaluation of alternative possible sensor-deployment configurations is labor-intensive, costly, and time-consuming, which implies the need for a simulation-based methodology. In this work, we report on such a methodology that supports the modeling of indoor spaces, the activities of their occupants, and the behaviors of different types of sensors. We argue that, in order for a simulation to be useful for the purpose of evaluating a sensor deployment configuration, it has to generate realistic event streams of individual sensors over time, as well as realistic compositions of sensor events within a time window. We have evaluated our simulator for smart indoor spaces, SIMsis toolkit, in the context of our Smart-Condo ambient-assisted living platform, supporting the observation and analysis of activities of daily living (ADLs). Our findings indicate that SIMsis produces realistic agent traces and sensor readings, and has the potential to support the process of developing and deploying sensor-based applications.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".