MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387193954 · doi:10.1109/gtd49768.2023.00056

Assessment of Non-Intrusive Load Monitoring as a Blind Source Separation Problem

2023· article· en· W4387193954 on OpenAlexaff
Madhawa Herath, Migara H. Liyanage, Chitral J. Angammana

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIndependent component analysisBlind signal separationPreprocessorSoftware deploymentEnergy (signal processing)Data pre-processingLimitingSIGNAL (programming language)Aggregate (composite)Energy consumptionComponent (thermodynamics)Data miningArtificial neural networkSource separationData modelingArtificial intelligenceReal-time computingEngineeringDatabaseTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-Intrusive Load Monitoring (NILM) allows consumers to monitor appliances' power consumption without installing appliance-level sensors. NILM has become popular with the rapid deployment of smart energy meters. Neural network-based disaggregation approaches have provided more promising results in NILM. However, most of them must have labeled energy data for model training. The availability of energy data is inadequate, and the data must be updated frequently for higher disaggregation performances. However, none of the existing datasets is periodically updated. Therefore, training data has become a limiting factor for commercializing disaggregation solutions. This study addresses the issue by proposing an Independent Component Analysis (ICA) based solution to perform energy disaggregation as a blind source separation problem for the first time in the NILM domain. The aggregate energy signal has been used to prepare the independent input signals with a novel signal preprocessing approach. The results revealed the effectiveness of ICA in NILM applications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207