MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213490051 · doi:10.1109/tai.2021.3125918

Multiadvisor Reinforcement Learning for Multiagent Multiobjective Smart Home Energy Control

2021· article· en· W3213490051 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceCurse of dimensionalityScalabilityKey (lock)Smart gridControl (management)Demand responseArtificial intelligenceMachine learningEngineeringElectricity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective automated smart home energy control is essential for smart grid approaches to demand response (DR). This is a multiobjective adaptive control problem because it balances an appliance’s primary objective with demand response objectives. One challenge comes from the heterogeneous nature of objectives, requiring tradeoffs between comfort, cost, and other objectives. Another challenge comes from the heterogeneous dynamics, which result from different environments and the different appliances used. Another challenge is nonstationary nature of dynamics and rewards due to seasonal changes and time-varying user preferences. Finally, we consider computational challenges, required by the real-time aspect of the control problem, particularly notable due to “the curse of dimensionality.” We propose a multiagent multiadvisor reinforcement learning framework to address these challenges. We design a smart-home simulation to demonstrate the performance (in terms of weighted reward) of our approach relative to competitive single-objective reinforcement learning algorithms. Furthermore, we theoretically and empirically demonstrate the linear computational scalability of the algorithm. Finally, we identify the need for key performance measures of the proposed system by considering the effect of selected preferences on agents. Overall, the proposed algorithm is reasonably competitive with conventional approaches while simultaneously enabling behavior changes with change in preferences without requiring more 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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.221 · 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