MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416704893 · doi:10.26868/25222708.2025.1234

Explainable domain adaptation without source data for activity recognition

2025· article· W4416704893 on OpenAlexafffund
Naailah Mahamoodally, Manar Amayri, Jawher Dridi

Bibliographic record

VenueBuilding Simulation Conference proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProcess (computing)Activity recognitionTransfer of learningTransparency (behavior)Domain (mathematical analysis)Adaptation (eye)Energy (signal processing)Domain adaptation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, the excessive wastage of electrical energy in buildings has highlighted the critical need for energy optimization. Advanced methodologies such as Activity Recognition (AR) have emerged to refine energy distribution, particularly within HVAC systems, in smart buildings. The goal is to achieve the optimal comfort level with minimal energy consumption.Traditionally, supervised machine learning has been employed for AR in the smart building sector, where the model is trained with data collected in the same environment. Nonetheless, this approach frequently encounters the challenge of insufficient labeled data, attributed to high costs, extensive time requirements, and privacy concerns. Moreover, the model will not generalize well in related domains due to shifts in data distribution. Therefore, we employ Transfer Learning (TL), which leverages pre-existing knowledge from a well-labeled source domain to enhance model performance in a target domain. Instead of starting the learning process from scratch, TL allows models to utilize patterns and features learned from large datasets in the source domain to improve their predictions in new but similar domains.Moreover, previous works regarding AR have largely neglected the aspect of explainability. Consequently, the predictions made by AR models are often not interpretable, leaving us without insight into the decision-making processes of these black-box models. This hampers our ability to verify, validate, and trust the outputs, as it is challenging to understand how specific predictions are generated. The model performance can also drift because production data differs from training data, which makes it crucial to continuously monitor the models to promote responsible AI. The absence of transparency can result in unintended biases and errors, compromising the reliability and health safety of automated systems in smart buildings.This research addresses the identified challenges by adapting, improving, and evaluating various transfer learning approaches based on Decision Trees (DT), chosen for their human-readable decision rules, computational efficiency, and robustness to outliers. This study conducts an analytical comparison of the rule sets derived from these models. We utilize Explainable AI methods to interpret the models' decision-making mechanisms on unseen data. The framework's efficacy is tested across various benchmark datasets for AR, where it consistently achieves high accuracy while notably advancing the clarity and comprehensibility of the transfer learning mechanisms. The results underscore the potential of these explainable transfer learning models to enhance user trust and facilitate broader adoption in practical settings, thus contributing to the development of more accountable and transparent Building Management Systems (BMS).

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)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuilding Simulation Conference proceedingsSame topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207