An inquiry into the effect of thermal energy meter density and configuration on load disaggregation accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initial and maintenance costs often prevent dense submeter installations that enable room-level thermal energy monitoring. Previous studies suggested that building automation system (BAS) trend data represents an untapped potential to disaggregate existing meter data for heating and cooling into device- and system-level end-uses. These techniques disaggregate meter data by analyzing trend data that provide contextual information regarding the operating status of energy-consuming equipment. However, the level of submetering required to enable end-use disaggregation has yet to be studied. To this end, this paper investigates the effect of submeter density and configuration on the performance of a regression-based disaggregation strategy using BAS trend data as predictors. The method was evaluated in two steps; first, using synthetic meter and BAS trend data generated by a building performance simulation (BPS) model of a government office building, and second, with submeter data from a real office building. The results highlight the factors affecting the minimum number of heating energy submeters needed to be installed in both buildings for accurate device- and system-level disaggregation. The methodology presented in the paper can also inform changes in building design codes and standards regarding the minimum density and appropriate configuration for submetering.
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 | 0.006 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".