Intelligent Power Management Models for Buildings: A Comparative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Power management in several sectors poses the problem of conserving the consumed power while satisfying the imposed conditions It is considered as a proactive control and management of the organization's energy consumption to save use and reduce energy expenses.Therefore, there is an actual need to include smart energy management systems in buildings in order to reduce the consumed energy.In this work, a comparative analysis is presented to evaluate deep and machine-learning approaches in the context of intelligent models for conserving power in smart buildings.The deep learning model is structured by using Deep Neural Networks (DNN), while machine learning models are represented by Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbor (K-NN), and Naive Bayes (NB).These models adopt three classes: full (power in full consumption), select (power in partial consumption), and shout down (no power consumption).Moreover, feature reduction methods of Boruta and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) are implemented to reduce the complexity of the models.The proposed models are trained and tested using a measured dataset for a building.Comparison results of the proposed models showed that the Random Forest attracts more attention regarding classification accuracy by 100% and a reasonable classification time of 1.23 seconds.The effectiveness of the comparative analysis which indicating the highest accuracy results for RF makes it as a suitable model to be implemented as an optimal one in real-time power management systems.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".