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 OpenAlexaff
Andrew Tittaferrante, Abdulsalam Yassine

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207