Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Large Language Model Interface for Home Energy Management Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A large language model can act as a plain-language front end for home energy management systems, retrieving the eight parameters those systems need from messy conversational answers with 88% average accuracy.

desk verdict A well-documented LLM-HEMS interface with a solid but entirely synthetic evaluation; the 88% accuracy is a simulation result, not a proven real-world number. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07919 v1 pith:OWQGFVS2 submitted 2025-01-14 cs.AI

François Michelon , Yihong Zhou , Thomas Morstyn This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords HomeEnergyManagementSystemLLMinterfaceparameterretrievalReActfew-shotpromptingusersimulationdemand-sideflexibilitynaturallanguageprocessing
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

This paper argues that the main obstacle to widespread home energy management systems (HEMS) is not the optimization math but the chore of feeding the optimizer: residents must translate their lives into a dozen precisely formatted parameters. The authors propose inserting a large language model between the user and the HEMS, so that a resident can answer natural-language questions about when they leave for work, how many electric vehicles they own, what temperatures they find comfortable, and the interface converts those messy answers into the exact formats the HEMS requires. They claim this LLM interface retrieves all eight required parameters with an average accuracy of 88%, and that adding ReAct reasoning and a few-shot example improves both accuracy and the number of questions needed relative to acting without reasoning. Because recruiting human testers is slow, they evaluate using a second LLM that simulates users at three expertise levels; the 88% figure therefore depends on that simulation being a faithful stand-in for real residents.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the ReAct agent loop: the LLM generates a short reasoning step ('Thought'), emits a JSON tool call ('Action') either asking the user a question or storing a retrieved value, receives the tool result ('Observation'), and repeats until it has stored all eight parameters. Few-shot prompting supplies one complete worked example of the Thought/Action/Observation cycle in the prompt, which the authors show reduces hallucinated or malformed tool calls. The other half of the machinery is the evaluation harness: a second LLM impersonates the user, with prompts that prescribe answer length, date format, and injected noise, defining three difficulty levels (Easy, Medium, Hard) whose separation is validated by cosine similarity between the simulated answers and an idealized answer, computed with a MiniLM embedding model.

What would settle it

Run the same eight-parameter retrieval task with real non-technical household residents using the same ReAct+example agent, and compare answer patterns and exact-match retrieval accuracy to the Easy/Medium/Hard simulated users; if human answers have lower cosine similarity than the Hard prompt produces, or human retrieval accuracy falls more than a few points below the simulated Hard rate, the simulation is not a valid proxy for the claimed democratization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a generic 7-billion-parameter LLM, armed with two tools (ask_user and store), a ReAct-style think-act-observe loop, and a single worked example in its prompt, can extract the full set of HEMS parameters from conversational user answers—dates, times, a city name, a count, and two temperature bounds—with exact-match accuracy of 88% on average across three models and three user-difficulty levels. The best configuration, ReAct+example on Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2, reaches 96.9% accuracy for easy users, 87.5% for medium, and 78.8% for hard, and it does so with fewer questions than the ablation without reasoning. The paper reads this as evidence that the parameterization barrier to HEMS adoption is surmountable by prompt engineering alone, without fine-tuning, and that the technology moves toward the democratization of home energy management systems.

Load-bearing premise

The entire 88% accuracy result rests on the assumption that an LLM told to play a user—given exact personal data and rules about answer length and format—behaves enough like a real, especially non-technical, resident that the results carry over to actual homes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If 88% accuracy transfers to real users, a household can parameterize a bill-minimizing HEMS by answering a short chat instead of filling forms, removing the steepest barrier to adoption.
  • ReAct plus one example is the configuration to use: it beats act-only baselines on every difficulty level for the strongest model, and cuts the number of questions the user must answer.
  • The worst errors concentrate in temperature bounds (Tmin, Tmax), where the agent sometimes stores a midpoint of a spoken range ('between 18 and 19') or performs unnecessary Celsius conversions; fixing this one parameter class would lift accuracy most.
  • Because the interface works by function calling with only two tools, the same scaffold can be re-pointed at other structured parameter-extraction tasks (e.g., EV charger setup, tariff switching) without retraining.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: The simulated-user evaluation is likely optimistic. The LLM user is given exact personal facts and explicit rules about answer length and format; real residents forget details, use vague terms, or decline to answer, so the 88% should be treated as an upper bound until validated with human pilots.
  • Editorial: The exact-match accuracy metric is stricter than what a downstream HEMS needs. If the HEMS accepted near-matches (e.g., 'London' vs 'london', or '19°C' vs '19'), effective usability could be higher than 88%.
  • Editorial: A direct test of the proxy assumption would be to run the same eight-parameter retrieval with a small group of non-technical residents and compare answer distributions and retrieval accuracy against the Easy/Medium/Hard simulated users; if real answers fall outside the simulated envelope, the difficulty ladder should be recalibrated.
  • Editorial: The temperature failures suggest a concrete prompt fix—instructing the agent to ask a clarifying second question when the user gives a range for a single bound—which is itself a testable improvement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents an LLM-based natural-language interface for parameterizing a home energy management system (HEMS). The interface uses function calling together with ReAct and few-shot prompting to ask a user questions, extract eight parameters (simulation dates, EV count, city, arrival/departure times, and temperature bounds), and store them in a HEMS-compatible format. To avoid recruiting human participants, the authors introduce an LLM-simulated user with three hand-crafted difficulty levels and evaluate three Mistral-7B variants and three agent configurations on 20 tests per difficulty level. The best configuration, V2 with ReAct+example, achieves 96.9%, 87.5%, and 78.8% accuracy on Easy, Medium, and Hard modes, respectively, averaging 88%. The paper concludes that the interface moves toward democratizing HEMS.

Significance. The paper's strengths are transparency (full prompts in Appendix B, a public code repository, and a clearly specified parameter-retrieval task) and a sensible decomposition of the HEMS parameterization problem into an interactive question-answering pipeline. If the LLM-user simulation were validated, the automated evaluation method could be useful for early-stage design of conversational interfaces. However, the main numerical result is only as strong as the simulation proxy: there is no evidence that the simulated Easy/Medium/Hard behavior matches real residents, and the best agent and the simulated user share the same model family. The significance of the work is therefore currently conditional on external validation rather than demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 4, A.3, 5, and 6; Table 2] The evaluation substitutes an LLM for the target user population, and the simulated user is the same Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2 model as the best-performing agent V2. The quoted 88% accuracy and the claim that 'HEMS can be widespread' (Section 5) are therefore not demonstrated for real residents; Section 6 itself concedes that pilot studies in real households are still needed. This is load-bearing for the abstract and the conclusion. Please add a real-human validation (even a small pilot) or substantially re-scope all claims to the simulated setting, and update the abstract accordingly.
  2. [Section 5.1; Table 2] Each accuracy figure is based on 20 tests per difficulty level, but no confidence intervals or significance tests are provided. The differences underpinning the ReAct claim are small in several cells, for example V2 Act+example versus ReAct+example: Easy 95.0 vs 96.9 and Hard 77.5 vs 78.8. With n=20 these gaps can easily arise from sampling noise. The authors should report confidence intervals or statistical tests, or soften the comparative claims.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5.1] The quoted 88% average is an unweighted mean over Easy, Medium, and Hard accuracies, and the real-world distribution over difficulty levels is unknown. For the best configuration the Hard-mode accuracy is 78.8%, so if deployed users are predominantly non-technical the expected accuracy would plausibly be closer to that value. The paper should state this caveat explicitly and, if data allow, provide a weighted analysis or a sensitivity range over difficulty priors.
  4. [Sections 4 and A.3] The three difficulty levels are defined by hand-written prompt templates and validated only by cosine similarity to a 'perfect' answer. This does not establish that the levels correspond to actual user expertise, since both the generation of the answers and the scoring metric rely on the same artificial templates. The text should describe the levels as prompt-induced answer patterns rather than validated expertise levels, and the conclusion that the LLM user 'models a wide variety of user behavior' should be tempered accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix A.2, Algorithm 1] The loop condition 'while not is_done() and n_iter >= iter' appears to be off by one; it should likely be 'iter < n_iter' (with an appropriate initial value) so that the maximum number of iterations is respected.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The caption says the figure is for 'model V2' and contains the label 'V12', while the figure itself shows results for V1, V2, and V3; the caption and labels should be corrected.
  3. [Section 1] The phrase 'Using LLMs to facilitate the practical implementation of HEMS is a daily topic' should likely read 'a timely topic' or similar.
  4. [First page] The copyright line reads '© 2018', which appears to be a template artifact and should be updated to the correct year.
  5. [Table 2] Adding an average row per LLM/agent configuration would make the claimed 88% average directly visible and easier to verify from the table.
  6. [Section 5] The exact-match criterion for string parameters such as city names counts case differences (e.g., 'Oxford' versus 'OXFORD') as failures; the authors should consider reporting how many errors are purely formatting or case issues versus substantive value errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 88% accuracy result is a measured retrieval rate against fixed simulated-user ground truths, and the paper explicitly concedes that real-user pilot studies are still needed.

full rationale

This paper contains no first-principles derivation whose conclusion is equivalent to its inputs. The central quantitative claim is an empirical accuracy measurement: the LLM agent stores values, and a test is counted as successful only if the stored parameters exactly match the user's personal information inserted into the LLM-user prompt (Section 5: "we will store the user's personal information and the parameter the LLM agent stored by himself and we will count this test as a success if the parameters are exactly the ones retrieved by the agent"). The accuracy numbers in Table 2 are thus exact-match results against fixed ground-truth values, not predictions derived from fitted parameters or from the simulated-user design. The most self-referential aspect is that the best-performing agent (V2, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2) is evaluated against a simulated user also generated with Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2 (Section A.3: "We used Mistral AI instruct model V2 to generate the answers of the LLM user"). This raises a legitimate external-validity concern about whether LLM-simulated users represent real residents, but it is not circularity: the benchmark is not defined in terms of the outcome it claims to establish, and no quantity is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The paper itself flags the limitation in Section 6: "future efforts should incorporate pilot studies in diverse real households to gather feedback, evaluate performance, and refine the system for broader and more practical adoption." Consequently, the conclusion that "HEMS can be widespread" is an extrapolation from a synthetic benchmark, not a result forced by construction. The self-citations present are not load-bearing: [15] is background on an open-source platform and [5] is the study's own code repository, which is code-reproduced evidence rather than an unverified authority. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. Therefore, there is no significant circularity; the appropriate finding is a score of 0.

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

The paper introduces no fitted numeric free parameters and no invented physical entities. Its burden is carried by domain assumptions, chiefly that an LLM can stand in for real human users with varying expertise, that exact string match is the right success criterion, and that the Mistral-7B family is representative. These assumptions are acknowledged in the conclusion as requiring real pilot studies.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LLM user simulation at three difficulty levels is a valid proxy for real human user behavior, including non-technical users.
    The entire evaluation (Section 4 and A.3) uses an LLM to emulate users; the conclusion explicitly acknowledges that real household pilot studies are still needed. If the simulation does not capture real user behavior, the 88% figure does not transfer to the claimed real-world scenario.
  • domain assumption Exact string matching of stored parameters is the correct measure of interface success.
    Section 5.1 defines 'Oxford' != 'OXFORD' as a failure because the HEMS is inflexible, but this binary metric ignores semantically correct variants that would still be usable after light normalization.
  • domain assumption The HEMS model and its constants (Eq. 1, Table 5) adequately represent residential heating and EV charging for the illustrative energy cost calculation.
    The temperature model is taken from [9] and the consumption data from [4]; the 48% cost saving is a single illustrative scenario, not a general result.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity computed with all-MiniLM-L6-v2 embeddings of question+answer pairs reflects user answer precision.
    Section A.3 introduces this metric to validate the difficulty hierarchy; it is not calibrated against actual task difficulty for real users.
  • domain assumption The three Mistral-7B model variants are representative of LLMs in general for this task.
    Results are reported for three variants of a single 7B model family; generalization to other LLMs (GPT, Claude, etc.) is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large Language Model Interface for Home Energy Management Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OWQGFVS2

@misc{pith2026250107919,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large Language Model Interface for Home Energy Management Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OWQGFVS2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07919}
}
read the original abstract

Home Energy Management Systems (HEMSs) help households tailor their electricity usage based on power system signals such as energy prices. This technology helps to reduce energy bills and offers greater demand-side flexibility that supports the power system stability. However, residents who lack a technical background may find it difficult to use HEMSs effectively, because HEMSs require well-formatted parameterization that reflects the characteristics of the energy resources, houses, and users' needs. Recently, Large-Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated an outstanding ability in language understanding. Motivated by this, we propose an LLM-based interface that interacts with users to understand and parameterize their ``badly-formatted answers'', and then outputs well-formatted parameters to implement an HEMS. We further use Reason and Act method (ReAct) and few-shot prompting to enhance the LLM performance. Evaluating the interface performance requires multiple user--LLM interactions. To avoid the efforts in finding volunteer users and reduce the evaluation time, we additionally propose a method that uses another LLM to simulate users with varying expertise, ranging from knowledgeable to non-technical. By comprehensive evaluation, the proposed LLM-based HEMS interface achieves an average parameter retrieval accuracy of 88\%, outperforming benchmark models without ReAct and/or few-shot prompting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07919 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. High-level interface LLM-HEMS flowchart Sub-flowchart A, current Home Energy Management System (HEMS) requires well-formatted parameters from the User. After that, the HEMS controls the different appliances of the user’s house to optimize the energy schedule while respecting users’ preferences. Sub-flowchart B illustrates the proposed LLM-integrated system. The LLM agent first interacts with the user by asking well-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Interface flow diagram of React retrieval [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. LLM agent retrieval example the main task. In line 2, the agent first decides to fulfill its first goal, i.e. to ask a question to the user in lines 3 to 9. The user answers with line 10. Here the first step B1 of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Average cosine similarity score of user precision [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The interaction process of the LLM-integrated HEMS from a user’s perspective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Boxplot distribution of test results for model V2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Agent chat template In case the JSON blob parsed from the text generated by the LLM agent is not correct, the parser will return an error message (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tool description [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Error message 1 You will have to answer questions about your personal information. 2 Here is your personal information: 3 4 city: $CITY 5 number of electric vehicles: $EV 6 minimum house comfort temperature: $TMIN C 7 maximum house comfort temperature: $TMAX C 8 time …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: User prompt template easy mode 1 You will have to answer questions about your personal information. 2 Here is your personal information: 3 4 You live in $CITY in England, in a house. 5 You own $EV volvo XC40. 6 Your house comfort temperature is between $TMIN °C and $T…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: User prompt template medium mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: User prompt template hard mode 1 <|im_start|>system 2 $USER_PROMPT<|im_end|> 3 <|im_start|>agent 4 $QUERY<|im_end|> 5 <|im_start|>user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: User chat template [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Large Language Model-Empowered Interactive Load Forecasting

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A multi-agent LLM framework enables interactive, natural-language steering of load forecasting pipelines and reports improved accuracy when users provide informed guidance.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    European Environment Agency. 2023. eea.europa.eu. https://www.eea.europa. eu/publications/flexibility-solutions-to-support/at_download/file. [Accessed 19-07-2024]

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Bonadia, Fernanda C

    Rodrigo S. Bonadia, Fernanda C. L. Trindade, Walmir Freitas, and Bala Venkatesh

    work page

  3. [3]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin...

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    CLNR. 2024. Homepage - Customer-Led Network Revolution — networkrevolu- tion.co.uk. http://www.networkrevolution.co.uk/. [Accessed 13-08-2024]

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    EsaLaboratory. 2024. LLM. https://github.com/EsaLaboratory/llm

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Chien fei Chen, Xiaojing Xu, Jacqueline Adams, James Brannon, Fangxing Li, and Allen Walzem. 2020. When East meets West: Understanding residents’ home energy management system adoption intention and willingness to pay in Japan and the United States. Energy Research Social Science 69 (2020), 101616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101616

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Mathyas Giudici, Luca Padalino, Giovanni Paolino, Ilaria Paratici, Alexan- dru Ionut Pascu, and Franca Garzotto. 2024. Designing Home Automation Rou- tines Using an LLM-Based Chatbot. Designs 8, 3 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/ designs8030043

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Jinsoo Han, Chang-Sic Choi, Wan-Ki Park, and Ilwoo Lee. 2011. Green Home Energy Management System through comparison of energy usage between the same kinds of home appliances. In 2011 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Consumer Electronics (ISCE). IEEE, Singapore, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCE. 2011.5973168

    work page arXiv 2011

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Sanandaji, Kameshwar Poolla, and Tyrone L

    He Hao, Borhan M. Sanandaji, Kameshwar Poolla, and Tyrone L. Vincent. 2015. Aggregate Flexibility of Thermostatically Controlled Loads. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 30, 1 (2015), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2014.2328865

    2015

  2. [10]

    Chenghao Huang, Siyang Li, Ruohong Liu, Hao Wang, and Yize Chen. 2023. Large Foundation Models for Power Systems. arXiv:2312.07044 [eess.SY] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2312.07044

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Mengshuo Jia, Zeyu Cui, and Gabriela Hug. 2024. Enabling Large Language Models to Perform Power System Simulations with Previously Unseen Tools: A Case of Daline. arXiv:2406.17215 [eess.SY] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.17215

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Dasheng Lee and Chin-Chi Cheng. 2016. Energy savings by energy management systems: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016), 760–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.067

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Thatte, Na Li, and Le Xie

    Subir Majumder, Lin Dong, Fatemeh Doudi, Yuting Cai, Chao Tian, Dileep Kalathil, Kevin Ding, Anupam A. Thatte, Na Li, and Le Xie. 2024. Exploring the capabilities and limitations of large language models in the electric energy sector. Joule 8, 6 (2024), 1544–1549. https://doi....

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Takashi Matsuyama. 2014. i-Energy: Smart Demand-Side Energy Management . Springer London, London, 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6281- 0_8

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Collett, Avinash Vijay, Matthew Deakin, Scot Wheeler, Sivapriya M

    Thomas Morstyn, Katherine A. Collett, Avinash Vijay, Matthew Deakin, Scot Wheeler, Sivapriya M. Bhagavathy, Filiberto Fele, and Malcolm D. McCulloch

  8. [16]

    Stefan Pfenninger and Iain Staffell. 2016. Long-term patterns of European PV output using 30 years of validated hourly reanalysis and satellite data. Energy 114 (2016), 1251–1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.060

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Dmitriy Rivkin, Francois Hogan, Amal Feriani, Abhisek Konar, Adam Sigal, Xue Liu, and Gregory Dudek. 2024. AIoT Smart Home via Autonomous LLM Agents. IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2024), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2024. 3471904

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools. ArXiv abs/2302.04761 (2023). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:256697342

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Iain Staffell and Stefan Pfenninger. 2016. Using bias-corrected reanalysis to simulate current and future wind power output. Energy 114 (2016), 1224–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.068

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Vassilis Stavrakas and Alexandros Flamos. 2020. A modular high-resolution demand-side management model to quantify benefits of demand-flexibility in the residential sector. Energy Conversion and Management 205 (2020), 112339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112339

    2020

  13. [21]

    Martina Toshevska, Frosina Stojanovska, and Jovan Kalajdjieski. 2020. Com- parative Analysis of Word Embeddings for Capturing Word Similarities. In6th International Conference on Natural Language Processing (NATP 2020) (NATP 2020). Aircc Publishing Corporation, Copenhagen, Den...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Rodrigo Verschae, Takekazu Kato, and Takashi Matsuyama. 2016. Energy Man- agement in Prosumer Communities: A Coordinated Approach. Energies 9, 7 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3390/en9070562

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Nan Yang, and Ming Zhou. 2020. MiniLM: Deep Self-Attention Distillation for Task-Agnostic Compression of Pre- Trained Transformers. arXiv:2002.10957 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.10957

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mari...

    2020

  17. [25]

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. arXiv:2210.03629 [cs.CL]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Mohamed Zeid, Subir Majumder, Hasan Ibrahim, Prasad Enjeti, Le Xie, and Chao Tian. 2024. Predicting DC-Link Capacitor Current Ripple in AC-DC Rectifier Circuits Using Fine-Tuned Large Language Models. arXiv:2407.01724 [eess.SY] https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01724

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    ask_user

    Bin Zhou, Wentao Li, Ka Wing Chan, Yijia Cao, Yonghong Kuang, Xi Liu, and Xiong Wang. 2016. Smart home energy management systems: Concept, configu- rations, and scheduling strategies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 61 (2016), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.201...

    2016 doi

  20. [2020]

    Applied Energy 275 (2020), 115397

    OPEN: An open-source platform for developing smart local energy sys- tem applications. Applied Energy 275 (2020), 115397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apenergy.2020.115397

    2020

  21. [2023]

    IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 38, 6 (2023), 5965–5968

    On the Potential of ChatGPT to Generate Distribution Systems for Load Flow Studies Using OpenDSS. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 38, 6 (2023), 5965–5968. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3315543

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.