Potential Impacts of Smart Homes on Human Behavior: A Reinforcement Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aim to investigate the potential impacts of smart homes on human behavior. To this end, we simulate a series of human models capable of performing various activities inside a reinforcement learning-based smart home. We then investigate the possibility of human behavior being altered as a result of the smart home and the human model adapting to one-another. We design a semi-Markov decision process human task interleaving model based on hierarchical reinforcement learning that learns to make decisions to either pursue or leave an activity. We then integrate our human model in the smart home which is based on Q-learning. We show that a smart home trained on a generic human model is able to anticipate and learn the thermal preferences of human models with intrinsic rewards similar to the generic model. The hierarchical human model learns to complete each activity and set optimal thermal settings for maximum comfort. With the smart home, the number of time steps required to change the thermal settings are reduced for the human models. Interestingly, we observe that small variations in the human model reward structures can lead to the opposite behavior in the form of unexpected switching between activities which signals changes in human behavior due to the presence of the smart home.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".