MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402304588 · doi:10.3233/faia240757

Winning the 2023 CityLearn Challenge: A Community-Based Hierarchical Energy Systems Coordination Algorithm

2024· book-chapter· en· W4402304588 on OpenAlexaff
Andoni I. Garmendia, Francesco Morri, Quentin Cappart, Hélène Le Cadre

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEnergy (signal processing)AlgorithmDistributed computingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effective management and control of building energy systems are crucial for reducing the energy consumption peak loads, CO2 emissions, and ensuring the stability of the power grid, while maintaining optimal comfort levels within buildings. The difficulty to accommodate this trade-off is amplified by dynamic environmental conditions and the need for scalable solutions that can adapt across various building types and geographic locations. Acknowledging the importance of this problem, NeurIPS conference hosted since 2020 the CityLearn control challenge to foster the design of innovative solutions in building energy management. Participants were tasked with developing strategies that not only enhance energy efficiency but also prioritize sustainability and occupant comfort. This paper introduces the Community-based Hierarchical Energy Systems Coordination Algorithm (CHESCA), the winning approach of the 2023 edition. We rely on a hierarchical approach adaptable to an arbitrary number of buildings, first optimizing building-level metrics individually, and later refining these through a central community-level controller to improve grid-related metrics. Compared to the other high-ranked competitors, our approach demonstrated fast inference capabilities like learning-based methods, while offering a better interpretability and a superior generalization capabilities with minimal data requirements. This paper details our approach, supported by comprehensive experimental results and ablation studies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applicationsSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207