Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Active Collaborative Sensing for Energy Breakdown

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that ActSense, which selects home-appliance pairs by quantified uncertainty in a low-rank tensor model, provably reduces accumulated energy-breakdown error faster than any other sensor installation strategy.

desk verdict ActSense is a genuinely new active sensor-deployment formulation with solid empirical results on public data, but the theoretical optimality proof doesn't hold up and shouldn't be the paper's selling point. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00525 v1 pith:YC4VMO5O submitted 2019-09-02 cs.LG eess.SPstat.ML

Yiling Jia , Nipun Batra , Hongning Wang , Kamin Whitehouse This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGeess.SPstat.ML
keywords activelearningtensorcompletionenergybreakdowncollaborativesensingsensordeploymentuncertaintyquantificationCPdecompositionalternatingleastsquares
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks which homes and appliances should receive sub-meters so that appliance-level energy use in all homes can be reconstructed with the least instrumentation. It models readings as a low-rank home-by-appliance-by-month tensor and selects pairs with the highest quantified reconstruction uncertainty, using historical season patterns to anticipate future months. It claims a proof that this selection reduces accumulated estimation error at least as fast as any other strategy, with high probability. If correct, utilities could obtain the same energy-breakdown accuracy with far fewer installed sensors, lowering the cost barrier that currently prevents widespread deployment.

What carries the argument

The central object is a three-way energy tensor with homes, appliances, and months as axes, completed by non-negative CP decomposition into home, appliance, and season factor matrices. The uncertainty bound in Lemma 3.1 turns the q-linear convergence rates of alternating least squares into per-factor confidence ellipsoids, and the selection rule picks the unobserved home-appliance pair maximizing a sum of two ellipsoid-norm terms. A triangle kernel integrates those uncertainty estimates over a 12-month window, so past, current, and projected future months all contribute to the decision; the proof that this one-step greedy rule is error-optimal relies on a Sherman-Morrison update of the Hessian after observing the selected pair.

What would settle it

Run ActSense on the Dataport data, track the distance between successive ALS iterates and the final solution, and test whether each factor's error shrinks by a constant factor q<1 per round with a positive definite Hessian at the optimum; if the ratio fails to drop geometrically for any factor, Lemma 3.1's uncertainty bounds are not valid and the selection rule loses its proven guarantee.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ActSense treats energy breakdown as active tensor completion. Readings from M homes, N appliances, and T months form a three-way tensor that is assumed low rank and factored by non-negative CP decomposition into home, appliance, and season factors. The paper derives analytic confidence ellipsoids for each factor (Lemma 3.1) under a Gaussian noise model, and at each month selects the L unobserved home-appliance pairs with largest combined uncertainty, where uncertainty is a weighted sum over a 12-month window that uses historical season factors for future months. The theoretical result is that, with probability at least 1-delta, the upper bound on the prediction error after ActSense's selection is no larger than the bound after any other selection; empirically, on four years of Austin Dataport data, ActSense beats random, QBC, and VBV baselines, reaching the same year-RMSE with about 3 sensors per month where QBC needs 8 and random needs 10.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the alternating least squares routine used to fit the tensor converges geometrically to the true factors from its initialization; if that convergence does not hold on real data, the uncertainty bounds and the optimality guarantee collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fixed-budget comparisons on the Austin Dataport data favor ActSense in every year tested, with mean-RMSE improvements over random selection reaching 11.88% on average and 35.06% in the peak month of 2015.
  • For a target year-RMSE of 50, ActSense needs roughly 3 new sub-metered pairs per month; QBC needs 8 and random needs 10, so the same breakdown accuracy can be had at a fraction of the instrumentation cost.
  • Injecting historical season factors and summing uncertainty over past, current, and projected months improves selection; the ablation shows the largest gain comes from projecting future months, letting the algorithm install HVAC sensors in May rather than waiting until summer.
  • The Sherman-Morrison argument in the proof implies the one-step greedy selection is optimal in the sense of worst-case error upper bound, so no single-step replacement of the uncertainty rule can improve the guarantee.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the same greedy uncertainty rule transfers to other behind-the-meter monitoring problems, such as water, gas, or multi-zone HVAC, where aggregate readings are always available, time series are seasonal, and sensor installation is one-time.
  • Beyond the paper, because the proof relies on q-linear ALS convergence, the guarantee is unlikely to survive when the tensor rank is misspecified or data is too sparse to make the Hessian positive definite; in those regimes ActSense remains a reasonable heuristic but not a proven optimum.
  • Beyond the paper, a testable extension is to replace the fixed monthly budget L with a budget allocated across months by projected uncertainty; under the paper's assumptions this should lower the total sensors needed to reach a fixed accuracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ActSense, an active learning algorithm for sensor deployment in residential energy breakdown. Energy readings are modeled as a non-negative CP-decomposed three-way tensor over homes, appliances, and months; at each month the algorithm installs sensors on the home-appliance pairs with the highest estimated prediction uncertainty, integrating historical, current, and future month uncertainties through a time-decay kernel. The central claims are (i) a theoretical guarantee that ActSense reduces accumulated estimation error faster than any other installation strategy, and (ii) an empirical demonstration on the Dataport/Austin dataset that ActSense achieves higher reconstruction accuracy than random, query-by-committee, and variational Bayes baselines under a fixed sensor budget. The paper includes proofs in a supplementary document and releases code on GitHub.

Significance. If the theoretical guarantee were valid, this would be a meaningful advance for active tensor completion and for practical energy-disaggregation deployment, where sensor budgets are a first-order constraint. The empirical setup is reproducible and uses a large public dataset, and the reported improvements over three baselines across four years are concrete and falsifiable. However, the theoretical argument has load-bearing gaps: Lemma 3.1 rests on unverified global convergence assumptions, and the proof of Eq. (9) uses an unjustified componentwise dominance step and proves only a one-step bound on two pairs, not the accumulated-error optimality stated in the abstract. The empirical contribution is promising, but the advertised theoretical result is not established as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.5 and supplementary proof of Eq. (9)] The proof of Eq. (9) claims that the ActSense selection condition implies M ≥ G and N ≥ H, where M,N,G,H are defined immediately below the displayed bounds. The selection rule in Eq. (5) gives only the weighted inequality α1 M + α2 N ≥ α1 G + α2 H, which does not imply componentwise dominance. Without M ≥ G and N ≥ H, the comparison between the two upper bounds, specifically the ordering of α1 M / sqrt(1+M^2) + α2 N / sqrt(1+N^2) versus α1 G / sqrt(1+G^2) + α2 H / sqrt(1+H^2), does not follow. Thus the key inequality UB(EA(t+1)) ≤ UB(EO(t+1)) is not established, and the central optimality claim is unsupported.
  2. [Lemma 3.1 and Algorithm 2] Lemma 3.1 assumes 'proper initialization' of the coordinate descent, a positive definite Hessian at the optimizer, and q-linear convergence of ALS with rates q1, q2, q3 in (0,1). Algorithm 2 initializes all latent factors to zero (lines 1–3) and provides no verification that the required conditions hold for the non-convex objective in Eq. (1). The cited result [40] is a local convergence theorem, and the supplementary text only says that the regularization parameter should be 'sufficiently large' without giving a sufficient condition. Moreover, with noisy observations the minimizer of the regularized empirical objective is not generally the ground-truth factors h*, a*, s* used in the lemma. Consequently, the uncertainty bounds α used in the selection rule (5) and in Eq. (8) have no validated basis, and the entire proof tree rooted at Lemma 3.1 is unsupported.
  3. [Abstract, §3.5, and conclusion] The paper claims a rigorous guarantee on 'accumulated estimation error' and on requiring 'less sensor deployment' than any other strategy, but the proof in §3.5 only compares upper bounds at a single future time for the single pair whose selection is exchanged, with all other errors asserted to be 'bounded by the same result.' It does not integrate the error over multiple months, does not treat a budget of L sensors per month, and does not compare against arbitrary deployment strategies over the full horizon. The empirical budget experiment (Figure 5) provides some support for the practical claim, but the stated theoretical conclusion is not a consequence of the proof as written. The authors should either weaken the stated theorem to a one-step local guarantee or provide a substantially extended proof.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 2, line 3] The initialization `E^0_t ← λ2I` appears to be a typo; for consistency with Eq. (4) and the parameter λ3, it should be `E^0_t ← λ3I`.
  2. [Section 3.3] The statement 'for any ϵ1 > 0.ϵ2 > 0,ϵ3 > 0' uses a period instead of a comma or semicolon after '0'; this should be corrected.
  3. [Figure 3(b)] The improved-ratio plot contains unusual '□80' symbols in the y-axis tick labels, which appear to be rendering artifacts or missing negative signs; the figure should be regenerated to display the actual tick values.
  4. [Supplementary Eq. (13)] In the second term of the displayed bound for EA(t+1), the matrix `(C^{t+1}_{yo})^{-1}` is used where `(C^{t+1}_{ya})^{-1}` seems intended, given the definition of N; this inconsistency should be fixed.
  5. [Section 4.3.1] The sentence 'VBV gives worse energy breakdown quality than other approaches due to its poor performance in parameter estimation' attributes a causal explanation that the experiments do not directly isolate; consider softening the claim or adding supporting evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the theoretical claim is a (gap-ridden) analysis of the greedy selection rule rather than a restatement of it, and the self-cited season-pattern prior is also empirically supported.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. The optimality argument in Section 3.5 starts from Lemma 3.1, whose supplementary proof invokes external self-normalized martingale bounds [1] and an external local-convergence result for ALS [40]; it does not import the target conclusion. The selection rule in Eq. (5) is an argmax over uncertainty terms that also appear in the error bound of Eq. (8), but this is the standard structure of a greedy-analysis proof, not a self-definitional reduction: the rule selects by current uncertainty, not by the t+1 error bound whose comparison is the theorem's conclusion. The proof's clause 'with M≥G and N≥H' is not implied by the argmax rule and is a genuine correctness gap, but a missing or false lemma is not circularity. The season-pattern assumption behind Eq. (6) is motivated by same-author citation [7], but the paper explicitly states it as an assumption and provides independent empirical support in Figure 2 and the ablation in Table 2, so the self-citation is not the sole load-bearing evidence. The empirical RMSE evaluations are on held-out test data with hyperparameters chosen via validation, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. I therefore find no step that reduces by construction to its own inputs or to an author-imported uniqueness/ansatz claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the latent home, appliance, and season factors are standard low-rank model components. The central claim rests on several domain assumptions about the tensor structure, noise, ALS convergence, and season smoothness, plus hand-chosen hyperparameters.

free parameters (4)
  • tensor rank r = 1 to 4 (grid-searched)
    Selected via exhaustive grid search on validation set (Section 4.2); affects model capacity and decomposition.
  • regularization coefficients lambda1, lambda2, lambda3 = chosen from {5000, 8000, 10000}
    Grid-searched on validation set; needed for well-posed ALS updates.
  • time decay kernel width sigma = chosen from {1, 3, 6, 12}
    Grid-searched; controls how far past and future months contribute to uncertainty.
  • uncertainty bound alpha = 0.1 (fixed by hand)
    Section 4.2: authors fix alpha_t_i and alpha_t_j to 0.1; not computed from Lemma 3.1, despite being an upper bound in theory. This ad hoc constant directly affects selection.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The energy tensor E^{M x N x T} admits a low-rank non-negative CP decomposition with bounded latent factors (||h_i|| <= P, ||a_j|| <= Q, ||s_k|| <= R).
    Stated in Section 3.2 as the core modeling assumption, citing prior collaborative sensing work [7,9].
  • domain assumption Observed energy readings are corrupted by zero-mean Gaussian noise with finite variance.
    Section 3.3, used to derive confidence intervals in Lemma 3.1.
  • domain assumption ALS for the regularized CP objective converges q-linearly to the optimizer and the Hessian is positive definite at the optimizer.
    Used in Lemma 3.1 and supplementary Eqs (10)-(12); local convergence of ALS for CP is not guaranteed globally and requires proper initialization.
  • domain assumption Season factors are similar across years and change smoothly between adjacent months (||s_k - s_{k+1}|| <= gamma).
    Section 3.4 and proof of Eq (9); supported by Figure 2, but used to extrapolate future uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Regularization coefficients lambda1, lambda2, lambda3 are chosen large enough to make the subproblems in coordinate descent well-posed.
    Section 3.2, stated but not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Active Collaborative Sensing for Energy Breakdown." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YC4VMO5O

@misc{pith2026190900525,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Active Collaborative Sensing for Energy Breakdown},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YC4VMO5O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00525}
}
read the original abstract

Residential homes constitute roughly one-fourth of the total energy usage worldwide. Providing appliance-level energy breakdown has been shown to induce positive behavioral changes that can reduce energy consumption by 15%. Existing approaches for energy breakdown either require hardware installation in every target home or demand a large set of energy sensor data available for model training. However, very few homes in the world have installed sub-meters (sensors measuring individual appliance energy); and the cost of retrofitting a home with extensive sub-metering eats into the funds available for energy saving retrofits. As a result, strategically deploying sensing hardware to maximize the reconstruction accuracy of sub-metered readings in non-instrumented homes while minimizing deployment costs becomes necessary and promising. In this work, we develop an active learning solution based on low-rank tensor completion for energy breakdown. We propose to actively deploy energy sensors to appliances from selected homes, with a goal to improve the prediction accuracy of the completed tensor with minimum sensor deployment cost. We empirically evaluate our approach on the largest public energy dataset collected in Austin, Texas, USA, from 2013 to 2017. The results show that our approach gives better performance with a fixed number of sensors installed when compared to the state-of-the-art, which is also proven by our theoretical analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00525 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Active sensor deployment for energy breakdown. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Energy breakdown for Austin in 2015 and 2016. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our approach ActSense gives the best energy break [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Selection ratio of appliances, Austin, 2015. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Selection ratio of appliances for different uncer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean RMSE performance, Austin, 2014. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month 50 75 100 125 Mean RMSE Lower is better ActSense QBC Random VBV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean RMSE performance, Austin, 2016. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month 50 75 100 125 Mean RMSE Lower is better ActSense QBC Random VBV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mean RMSE performance, Austin, 2017 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Nipun Batra, Yiling Jia, Hongning Wang, and Kamin Whitehouse. 2018. Transfer- ring Decomposed Tensors for Scalable Energy Breakdown across Regions. AAAI (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [40]

    André Uschmajew. 2012. Local convergence of the alternating least squares algorithm for canonical tensor approximation. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 33, 2 (2012), 639–652

    work page 2012

  3. [1]

    Yasin Abbasi-Yadkori, Dávid Pál, and Csaba Szepesvári. 2011. Improved algo- rithms for linear stochastic bandits. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2312–2320

    work page 2011

  4. [2]

    K Carrie Armel, Abhay Gupta, Gireesh Shrimali, and Adrian Albert. 2013. Is disaggregation the holy grail of energy efficiency? The case of electricity. Energy Policy 52 (2013), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.062

    doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.062 2013

  5. [3]

    Peter Auer, Nicolo Cesa-Bianchi, and Paul Fischer. 2002. Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem. Machine learning 47, 2-3 (2002), 235–256

    work page 2002

  6. [4]

    Peter Auer, Nicolo Cesa-Bianchi, Yoav Freund, and Robert E Schapire. 1995. Gambling in a rigged casino: The adversarial multi-armed bandit problem. In focs. IEEE, 322

    work page 1995

  7. [5]

    Joseph E Banta, LR Wong, Christophe Dumont, and Mongi A Abidi. 2000. A next- best-view system for autonomous 3-D object reconstruction.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 30, 5 (2000), 589–598

    work page 2000

  8. [6]

    Nipun Batra, Rishi Baijal, Amarjeet Singh, and Kamin Whitehouse. 2015. How good is good enough? Re-evaluating the bar for energy disaggregation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.08713 (2015)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Nipun Batra, Amarjeet Singh, and Kamin Whitehouse. 2017. Systems and analyt- ical techniques towards practical energy breakdown for homes . Ph.D. Dissertation. IIIT-Delhi

    2017

  2. [9]

    Nipun Batra, Hongning Wang, Amarjeet Singh, and Kamin Whitehouse. 2017. Matrix Factorisation for Scalable Energy Breakdown.. In AAAI. 4467–4473

    2017

  3. [10]

    Matthew James Beal et al. 2003. Variational algorithms for approximate Bayesian inference. university of London London

    2003

  4. [11]

    Shayok Chakraborty, Jiayu Zhou, Vineeth Balasubramanian, Sethuraman Pan- chanathan, Ian Davidson, and Jieping Ye. 2013. Active matrix completion. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on . IEEE, 81–90

    2013

  5. [12]

    SY Chen and YF Li. 2005. Vision sensor planning for 3-D model acquisition. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) 35, 5 (2005), 894–904

    2005

  6. [13]

    Shengyong Chen, Youfu Li, and Ngai Ming Kwok. 2011. Active vision in robotic systems: A survey of recent developments. International Journal of Robotics Research 30, 11 (2011), 1343–1377

    2011

  7. [14]

    David A Cohn, Zoubin Ghahramani, and Michael I Jordan. 1996. Active learning with statistical models. Journal of artificial intelligence research 4 (1996), 129–145

    1996

  8. [15]

    Samuel DeBruin, Branden Ghena, Ye-Sheng Kuo, and Prabal Dutta. 2015. Powerblade: A low-profile, true-power, plug-through energy meter. InProceed- ings of the 13th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems . ACM, 17–29

    2015

  9. [16]

    Anthony Faustine, Nerey Henry Mvungi, Shubi Kaijage, and Kisangiri Michael

  10. [17]

    Zoubin Ghahramani and Michael I Jordan. 1997. Factorial hidden Markov models. Machine learning 29, 2-3 (1997)

    1997

  11. [18]

    George William Hart. 1992. Nonintrusive appliance load monitoring. Proc. IEEE 80, 12 (1992), 1870–1891. https://doi.org/10.1109/5.192069

    1992 doi

  12. [19]

    Neil Houlsby, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato, and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2014. Cold-start active learning with robust ordinal matrix factorization. In ICML. 766–774

    2014

  13. [20]

    Xiaofan Jiang, Stephen Dawson-Haggerty, Prabal Dutta, and David Culler. 2009. Design and implementation of a high-fidelity ac metering network. In 2009 International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks . IEEE, 253– 264

    2009

  14. [21]

    Srinivas Katipamula and Michael R Brambley. 2005. Review article: methods for fault detection, diagnostics, and prognostics for building systemsâĂŤa review. HV AC Research(2005), 3–25

    2005

  15. [22]

    Jaya Kawale, Hung H Bui, Branislav Kveton, Long Tran-Thanh, and Sanjay Chawla. 2015. Efficient Thompson Sampling for Onlineï£ij Matrix-Factorization Recommendation. In NIPS. 1297–1305

    2015

  16. [23]

    Jack Kelly, Nipun Batra, Oliver Parson, Haimonti Dutta, William Knottenbelt, Alex Rogers, Amarjeet Singh, and Mani Srivastava. 2014. Nilmtk v0. 2: a non- intrusive load monitoring toolkit for large scale data sets: demo abstract. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Emb...

    2014

  17. [24]

    Jack Kelly and William Knottenbelt. 2016. Does disaggregated electricity feedback reduce domestic electricity consumption? A systematic review of the literature. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.00962 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  18. [25]

    J. Z. Kolter, S. Batra, and A. Y. Ng. 2010. Energy Disaggregation via Discriminative Sparse Coding. In NIPS 2010. Vancouver, BC, Canada

    2010

  19. [26]

    J. Z. Kolter and T. Jaakkola. 2012. Approximate Inference in Additive Facto- rial HMMs with Application to Energy Disaggregation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics . La Palma, Canary Islands

    2012

  20. [27]

    Kiriakos N Kutulakos and Charles R Dyer. 1995. Global surface reconstruction by purposive control of observer motion. Artificial Intelligence 78, 1 (1995), 147–177

    1995

  21. [28]

    Lihong Li, Wei Chu, John Langford, and Robert E Schapire. 2010. A contextual- bandit approach to personalized news article recommendation. In Proceedings of the 19th WWW . ACM, 661–670

    2010

  22. [29]

    YF Li and ZG Liu. 2005. Information entropy-based viewpoint planning for 3-D object reconstruction. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 21, 3 (2005), 324–337

    2005

  23. [30]

    Oliver Parson, Grant Fisher, April Hersey, Nipun Batra, Jack Kelly, Amarjeet Singh, William Knottenbelt, and Alex Rogers. 2015. Dataport and NILMTK: A building data set designed for non-intrusive load monitoring. In GlobalSIP 2015. IEEE

    2015

  24. [31]

    Oliver Parson, Siddhartha Ghosh, Mark J Weal, and Alex Rogers. 2012. Non- Intrusive Load Monitoring Using Prior Models of General Appliance Types.. In AAAi

    2012

  25. [32]

    Luis Pérez-Lombard, José Ortiz, and Christine Pout. 2008. A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy and buildings 40, 3 (2008), 394–398

    2008

  26. [33]

    Richard Pito. 1999. A solution to the next best view problem for automated surface acquisition. IEEE PAMI 21, 10 (1999), 1016–1030

    1999

  27. [34]

    Burr Settles. 2012. Active learning. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning 6, 1 (2012), 1–114

    2012

  28. [35]

    Huijuan Shao, Manish Marwah, and Naren Ramakrishnan. 2013. A Temporal Motif Mining Approach to Unsupervised Energy Disaggregation: Applications to Residential and Commercial Buildings.. In AAAI

    2013

  29. [36]

    Ksenia Shubina and John K Tsotsos. 2010. Visual search for an object in a 3D environment using a mobile robot. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 114, 5 (2010), 535–547

    2010

  30. [37]

    Jorge Silva and Lawrence Carin. 2012. Active learning for online bayesian matrix factorization. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD . ACM, 325–333

    2012

  31. [38]

    Dougal J Sutherland, Barnabás Póczos, and Jeff Schneider. 2013. Active learning and search on low-rank matrices. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD . ACM, 212–220

    2013

  32. [39]

    Simon Tong and Daphne Koller. 2001. Support vector machine active learning with applications to text classification. JMLR 2, Nov (2001), 45–66

    2001

  33. [41]

    Huazheng Wang, Qingyun Wu, and Hongning Wang. 2017. Factorization Bandits for Interactive Recommendation.. In AAAI. 2695–2702

    2017

  34. [42]

    Qibin Zhao, Guoxu Zhou, Liqing Zhang, Andrzej Cichocki, and Shun-Ichi Amari

  35. [43]

    Ahmed Zoha, Alexander Gluhak, Muhammad Ali Imran, and Sutharshan Ra- jasegarar. 2012. Non-intrusive load monitoring approaches for disaggregated energy sensing: A survey. Sensors 12, 12 (2012), 16838–16866. SUPPLEMENTARY In this supplementary document, we provide detailed proo...

    2012

  36. [2016]

    IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 27, 4 (2016), 736–748

    Bayesian robust tensor factorization for incomplete multiway data. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 27, 4 (2016), 736–748

    2016

  37. [2017]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.00785 (2017)

    A survey on non-intrusive load monitoring methodies and techniques for energy disaggregation problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.00785 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.