Collective Contextual Anomaly Detection for Building Energy Consumption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commercial and residential buildings are responsible for a substantial portion of total global energy consumption and as a result make a significant contribution to global carbon emissions. Hence, energy-saving goals that target buildings can have a major impact in reducing environmental damage. During building operation, a significant amount of energy is wasted due to equipment and human-related faults. To reduce waste, today's smart buildings monitor energy usage with the aim of identifying abnormal consumption behaviour and notifying the building manager to implement appropriate energy-saving procedures. To this end, this research proposes the \\textit{ensemble anomaly detection} (EAD) framework. The EAD is a generic framework that combines several anomaly detection classifiers using majority voting. This anomaly detection classifiers are formed using existing machine learning algorithm. It is assumed that each anomaly classifier has equal weight. More importantly, to ensure diversity of anomaly classifiers, the EAD is implemented by combining pattern-based and prediction-based anomaly classifiers. For this reason, this research also proposes a new pattern-based anomaly classifier, the \\textit{collective contextual anomaly detection using sliding window} (CCAD-SW) framework. The CCAD-SW, which is also a machine leaning-based framework that identifies anomalous consumption patterns using overlapping sliding windows. The EAD framework combines the CCAD-SW, which is implemented using autoencoder, with two prediction-based anomaly classifiers that are implemented using the support vector regression and random forest machine-learning algorithms. In addition, it determines an ensemble threshold that yields an anomaly classifier with optimal anomaly detection capability and false positive minimization. Results show that the EAD performs better than the individual anomaly detection classifiers. In the EAD framework, the optimal ensemble anomaly classifier is not attained by combining the individual learners at their respective optimal performance levels. Instead, an ensemble threshold combination that yields the optimal anomaly classifier was identified by searching through the ensemble threshold space. The research was evaluated using real-world data provided by Powersmiths, located in Brampton, Ontario, Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".