Monday, February 25, 2013

Event Detection

This post summarises the paper "Event Detection for Non Intrusive Load Monitoring" by Anderson et al.

The main aim of the paper is to introduce a set of metrics for evaluating the event detection algorithms in NILM and to provide a dataset which enables others to test their event detection algorithms. The paper also briefly discusses the methods used for event detection in the NILM (for more information about NIALM please see Oliver's blog). According to the paper, there are three main categories which aim to detect explicit change-points in a time-series signal. The categories are listed as follows.

- Expert Heuristics: The detection of step-like changes present in the power consumption signal with the use of the standard deviation of the fixed-size set of examples. 

- Probabilistic Models: As an example, the Generalized Likelihood Ratio(GLR) is introduced. It requires the parameters including the window length , the power change and a threshold so as to calculate decision statistic.

- Matched-Filters: The matching of a known signal (mask) with an unknown one in order to detect the mask in the unknown signal.

The event detection metrics introduced for event-based NILM approach are True Positive Rate, True Positive Percentage, Total Power Change, Average Power Change and  Score Function. In order to show the validity of the metrics, the paper uses a modified generalized likelihood ratio(GLR). The GLR is tested with a  fully-labeled dataset for BLUED dataset which is available here.

The paper concludes that the total power change metric outperforms the other three metrics which are True Positive Rate,  True Positive Percentage and Average Power Change.






Saturday, February 16, 2013

Agent vs Direct Manipulation

In this post, I will write some points made in the article "Designing for Human-Agent Interaction" by Lewis.
There are two main interface metaphors: agent and environment. While agent metaphor uses the computer as a mediator which responds to user requests,  environment metaphor enables the user to interact with the task domain directly. Agents are designed to automate repetitive, poorly specified or complex precesses by bridging the gap between a user's goals and actions.

The figure above taken from the article shows the possible automations that can occur in the execution or evaluation phases defined by Norman. The issue of the automation is that if the execution side is automated the user may fail to monitor effects of actions and cannot regulate the incorrect ongoing processes. On the other hand, if the evaluation side is automated the user might be unable to observe the results of actions. 

* I will keep updating this post.