Optimizing occupant-centric building controls given stochastic occupant behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Occupant-centric control (OCC) strategies represent a novel approach for indoor climate control in which occupancy patterns and occupant preferences are embedded within control sequences. They aim to improve both occupant comfort and energy efficiency by learning and predicting occupant behaviour, then optimizing building operations accordingly. Previous studies estimate that OCC can increase energy savings by up to 60% while improving occupant comfort. However, their performance is subjected to several factors, including uncertainty due to occupant behaviour, OCC configurational settings, as well as building design parameters. To this end, testing OCCs and adjusting their configurational settings are critical to ensure optimal performance. Furthermore, identifying building design alternatives that can optimize such performance given different occupant preferences is an important step that cannot be investigated during field implementations of OCC due to logistical constraints. This paper presents a framework to optimize OCC performance in a simulation environment, which entails coupling synthetic occupant behaviour models with OCCs that learn their preferences. The genetic algorithm for optimization is then used to identify the configurational settings and design parameters that minimize energy consumption under three different occupant scenarios. To demonstrate the proposed framework, three OCCs were implemented in the building simulation program, EnergyPlus, and executed through a Python package, EPPY to optimize OCC configurational settings and design parameters. Results revealed significant improvement of OCC performance under the identified optimal configurational settings and design parameters for each of the investigated occupant scenarios. This approach would improve OCC performance in actual buildings and avoid discomfort issues that arise during the initial implementation phases.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".