MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285238437 · doi:10.1109/ojia.2022.3178235

A Recommender System for Predictive Control of Heating Systems in Economic Demand Response Programs

2022· article· en· W4285238437 on OpenAlexafffund
David Toquica, Kodjo Agbossou, Roland P. Malhamé, Nilson Henao, Sousso Kélouwani, Michaël Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Open Journal of Industry Applications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalCollège ShawiniganUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHydro-QuébecUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Leverage (statistics)Recommender systemComputer scienceDemand responseModel predictive controlContext (archaeology)Control (management)Industrial engineeringArtificial intelligenceMachine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flexibility from demand-side resources is increasingly required in modern power systems to maintain the dynamic balance between demand and supply. This flexibility comes from elastic users managing controllable loads. In this context, controlling Electric Space Heaters (ESHs) is of particular interest because it can leverage building inner thermal storage capacity to shift consumption while maintaining comfort conditions. Some economic Demand Response (DR) programs have considered exploiting EHSs flexibility potentials in recent years. However, these programs still struggle to engage customers due to the complexity of processing price signals for inexpert users. Therefore, it is necessary to develop automated tools for helping users to operate their loads. Accordingly, this paper presents a recommender system based on Gaussian processes to discover users' valuations of thermal comfort and perform the predictive control of their ESHs. The proposed method enables customers to participate in DR programs and impose their preferences through straightforward queries instead of directly changing control parameters. Validation results demonstrate that users maximize their utility by supplying noiseless and consistent data to the recommender system. Additionally, the suggested approach achieves a higher acceptance rate than other methods from the literature, such as persistency and support vector machines.

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)0.005
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Open Journal of Industry ApplicationsSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207