4.7 Article

Inference of thermal preference profiles for personalized thermal environments with actual building occupants

Journal

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
Volume 148, Issue -, Pages 714-729

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.10.027

Keywords

Bayesian modeling; Office buildings; Thermal preference; Personalized thermal comfort; Model evaluation

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [1539527]
  2. Center of High Performance Buildings at Purdue University, United states
  3. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations
  4. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [1539527] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper we present a methodology to map individual occupants' thermal preference votes and indoor environmental variables into personalized preference models. Our modeling approach includes a new Bayesian classification and inference algorithm that incorporates hidden parameters and informative priors to account for the uncertainty associated with variables that are noisy or difficult to measure (unobserved) in real buildings (for example, the metabolic rate, air speed and occupants' clothing level). To demonstrate our approach, we conducted an experimental study in private offices by considering thermal comfort delivery conditions that are representative of typical office buildings. Personalized preference models were developed with the training dataset and the developed algorithms were used in a detailed validation process. The proposed model showed better prediction performance compared to previous methods. Towards realization of preference-based control systems, this study also addresses practical limitations associated with controlling model complexity and data efficiency as well as using effective model evaluation metrics to train reliable personalized preference models in the real world.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available