MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285134718 · doi:10.1109/tai.2022.3178065

Toward Personalization of User Preferences in Partially Observable Smart Home Environments

2022· article· en· W4285134718 on OpenAlexafffund
Shashi Suman, François Rivest, Ali Etemad

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsPersonalizationReinforcement learningComputer sciencePreferenceHome automationBaseline (sea)Human–computer interactionMachine learningArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The technologies used in smart homes have recently improved to learn the user preferences from feedback in order to enhance the user convenience and quality of experience. Most smart homes learn a uniform model to represent the thermal preferences of users, which generally fails when the pool of occupants includes people with different sensitivities to temperature, for instance, due to age and physiological factors. Thus, a smart home with a single optimal policy may fail to provide comfort when a new user with a different preference is integrated into the home. In this article, we propose a Bayesian reinforcement learning framework that can approximate the current occupant state in a partially observable smart home environment using its thermal preference and, then, identify the occupant as a new user or someone who is already known to the system. Our proposed framework can be used to identify users based on the temperature and humidity preferences of the occupant when performing different activities to enable personalization and improve comfort. We then compare the proposed framework with a baseline long short-term memory learner that learns the thermal preference of the user from the sequence of actions that it takes. We perform these experiments with up to five simulated human models each based on hierarchical reinforcement learning. The results show that our framework can approximate the belief state of the current user just by its temperature and humidity preferences across different activities with a high degree of accuracy.

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)0.007
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.162 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207