pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.07760 · v1 · pith:2WSEFMCWnew · submitted 2019-07-11 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.DC

A Methodology for Saving Energy in Educational Buildings Using an IoT Infrastructure

Georgios Mylonas , Dimitrios Amaxilatis , Stelios Tsampas , Lidia Pocero , Joakim Gunneriusson This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 23:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.DC
keywords IoT infrastructureenergy savingsschool buildingseducational scenariossustainability educationsmart buildingsenergy efficiency
0
0 comments X

The pith

An IoT infrastructure in schools supports educational activities that produce typical energy savings of 20 percent.

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

The paper describes a method that installs sensors in school buildings to collect energy data and then uses that data to design classroom activities aimed at cutting consumption. It walks through the steps of the method and presents results from multiple school sites showing savings around 20 percent. A sympathetic reader would care because school buildings form a large share of non-residential energy use and the same activities also teach students about sustainability. The infrastructure therefore serves both immediate efficiency goals and longer-term educational ones.

Core claim

The authors establish that an IoT infrastructure installed inside school buildings can support activities in an educational setting and produce concrete outcomes, with typical levels of 20% energy savings. The methodology relies on data produced by the installed sensors to create and run educational scenarios that encourage changes in energy-related behavior among students and staff.

What carries the argument

The IoT infrastructure that supplies real-time energy-use data, which is then incorporated directly into educational scenarios to guide behavior changes.

If this is right

  • Schools can achieve measurable reductions by turning live sensor data into student and staff activities.
  • The same sensor network can serve both day-to-day efficiency and sustainability teaching at the same time.
  • The approach produces consistent savings levels when applied across different school buildings.
  • Data from the infrastructure can be used repeatedly to update and refine the educational activities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same sensor-plus-education pattern could be tested in offices or libraries to check whether similar savings appear outside schools.
  • Repeated use of the data in lessons might produce lasting changes in how students use energy at home as well as at school.
  • Linking the building data to simple automated alerts could raise the savings level beyond the reported 20 percent.

Load-bearing premise

The observed energy reductions result from the IoT data and the associated educational activities rather than from unrelated factors such as weather, occupancy shifts, or earlier efficiency steps.

What would settle it

A side-by-side comparison of energy consumption in matched schools, some with the IoT sensors and activities and some without, while recording occupancy, weather, and any other building changes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.07760 by Dimitrios Amaxilatis, Georgios Mylonas, Joakim Gunneriusson, Lidia Pocero, Stelios Tsampas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Examples of the IoT infrastructure located inside school buildings in Greece (a-b) IoT nodes based on Arduino and Raspberry Pi, c) actual node inside [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The latest revision of the IoT node used inside classrooms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Screenshot from the GAIA BMS Web application. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Electric energy consumption week 44 - The baseline week. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Electric energy consumption during week 47 - The comparison week. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Room usage during week 47 Week Consumption Difference with baseline week Baseline 141,9 - Comparison 211 69,1 Energy saving 196,5 54,6 TABLE I POWER CONSUMPTION MEAN VALUES PER DAY (KWH/DAY) Consumption clearly correlates with the room usage, with a mean value this week of 211 kWh/day. Step 4 Action to lower energy consumption and monitor the results Week 50 was the energy saving week for the school in Sod… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Electric energy consumption during week 50 - The energy saving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Graph with light level threshold and with the period in which there [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A considerable part of recent research in smart cities and IoT has focused on achieving energy savings in buildings and supporting aspects related to sustainability. In this context, the educational community is one of the most important ones to consider, since school buildings constitute a large part of non-residential buildings, while also educating students on sustainability matters is an investment for the future. In this work, we discuss a methodology for achieving energy savings in schools based on the utilization of data produced by an IoT infrastructure installed inside school buildings and related educational scenarios. We present the steps comprising this methodology in detail, along with a set of tangible results achieved within the GAIA project. We also showcase how an IoT infrastructure can support activities in an educational setting and produce concrete outcomes, with typical levels of 20% energy savings.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper outlines a methodology for energy savings in educational buildings that combines an IoT sensor infrastructure with educational scenarios; it details the methodology steps and reports empirical outcomes from the GAIA project, including typical energy savings of 20%.

Significance. If the reported savings can be causally attributed to the described interventions, the work would supply a practical, replicable template for schools that simultaneously reduces consumption and teaches sustainability; the absence of controls, however, leaves the central empirical claim unsubstantiated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; results presentation] Abstract and results sections: the headline claim of 'typical levels of 20% energy savings' is presented without any description of measurement protocols, weather-normalized baselines, matched control schools, regression adjustment for occupancy or weather, or statistical significance tests; this directly undermines attribution of the observed delta to the IoT-plus-education methodology rather than to unmeasured confounders.
  2. [Methodology; evaluation] Methodology and evaluation sections: no quantitative linkage is supplied between the educational scenarios and the measured consumption changes (e.g., no before/after comparison tables, no difference-in-differences analysis, no falsification tests); the 20% figure therefore functions as an unverified project outcome rather than a demonstrated result of the proposed methodology.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify the exact number of schools, duration of monitoring, and sensor placement details so that the scale of the GAIA deployment can be assessed.
  2. Add a dedicated limitations subsection that explicitly discusses potential confounding factors and how they were (or were not) addressed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback. The comments correctly identify that our presentation of the 20% savings figure requires clearer qualification regarding the nature of the supporting evidence. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract; results presentation] Abstract and results sections: the headline claim of 'typical levels of 20% energy savings' is presented without any description of measurement protocols, weather-normalized baselines, matched control schools, regression adjustment for occupancy or weather, or statistical significance tests; this directly undermines attribution of the observed delta to the IoT-plus-education methodology rather than to unmeasured confounders.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract and results sections do not supply the measurement protocols, baselines, controls, or statistical tests referenced. The manuscript's primary contribution is the description of the IoT-plus-education methodology and its implementation steps within the GAIA project; the 20% figure is reported as an observed outcome across participating schools rather than as a causally demonstrated effect. We will revise the abstract and results sections to state explicitly that the savings represent project-reported reductions without controlled attribution or statistical validation. This removes any implication of rigorous causal inference. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methodology; evaluation] Methodology and evaluation sections: no quantitative linkage is supplied between the educational scenarios and the measured consumption changes (e.g., no before/after comparison tables, no difference-in-differences analysis, no falsification tests); the 20% figure therefore functions as an unverified project outcome rather than a demonstrated result of the proposed methodology.

    Authors: The evaluation section presents aggregate outcomes from the GAIA deployments but does not contain before/after tables, difference-in-differences analysis, or falsification tests linking specific educational scenarios to consumption changes. Because the project did not collect the matched control data or perform those analyses, we cannot add them. We will revise the evaluation section to clarify that the 20% value is an observed typical reduction across the project schools and not a statistically demonstrated result of the methodology. We will also add a limitations paragraph noting the absence of controlled evaluation. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • We cannot supply matched control schools, weather-normalized baselines, regression adjustments, or formal statistical significance tests because these elements were not part of the GAIA project data collection or analysis design.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical reporting of observed project outcomes with no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper presents a methodology for energy savings via IoT in schools and reports empirical results (typical 20% savings) from the external GAIA project. No equations, parameters, or derivations exist that could reduce to inputs by construction. Results are framed as observed outcomes rather than predictions derived from the paper's own definitions or models. No self-citation chains or ansatzes are load-bearing for any central claim. The paper is self-contained as a descriptive methodology report against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two standard domain assumptions about sensor accuracy and the effectiveness of data-driven education; no free parameters or new entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption IoT sensors installed in buildings produce reliable, actionable energy-consumption data
    Invoked when the methodology treats sensor output as the basis for both savings and educational activities.
  • domain assumption Integrating sensor data into school curricula produces measurable behavioral or operational changes that reduce energy use
    Required for the claim that the infrastructure supports educational scenarios leading to 20% savings.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5684 in / 1280 out tokens · 24115 ms · 2026-05-24T23:15:33.434970+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Science europe, science europe roadmap. available online

    “Science europe, science europe roadmap. available online.” 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    GAIA project website, http://gaia-project.eu/,

    “GAIA project website, http://gaia-project.eu/,” accessed May 1, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    European Web Portal for energy efficiency in buildings, http://www.buildup.eu

    work page

  4. [4]

    Key data on education in europe 2012,

    “Key data on education in europe 2012,” Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA P9 Eurydice, EUROSTAT), Tech. Rep., 2012, iSBN 978-92-9201-242-7

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Nonintrusive appliance load monitoring: Review and outlook,

    M. Zeifman and K. Roth, “Nonintrusive appliance load monitoring: Review and outlook,” IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics , vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 76–84, February 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Non-intrusive load monitoring approaches for disaggregated energy sensing: A survey,

    A. Zoha, A. Gluhak, M. A. Imran, and S. Rajasegarar, “Non-intrusive load monitoring approaches for disaggregated energy sensing: A survey,” Sensors, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 16 838–16 866, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/12/12/16838

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Evaluating energy performance in non-domestic buildings: A review,

    E. Borgstein, R. Lamberts, and J. Hensen, “Evaluating energy performance in non-domestic buildings: A review,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 128, pp. 734 – 755, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778816306144

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Building data genome project, https://github.com/buds-lab/the-building- data-genome-project,

    “Building data genome project, https://github.com/buds-lab/the-building- data-genome-project,” accessed online May 2019

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Empirical studies on the maker movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review,

    S. Papavlasopoulou, M. N. Giannakos, and L. Jaccheri, “Empirical studies on the maker movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review,” Entertainment Computing , vol. 18, pp. 57 – 78,

    work page

  10. [10]

    Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S1875952116300301

    [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S1875952116300301

    work page

  11. [11]

    Makerspace in school - considerations from a large-scale national testbed,

    E. Eriksson, C. Heath, P. Ljungstrand, and P. Parnes, “Makerspace in school - considerations from a large-scale national testbed,” International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction , vol. 16, pp. 9 – 15, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2212868917300521

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    ZEMedS project (Zero Energy MEDiterranean Schools), http://www.zemeds.eu

    work page

  13. [13]

    Towards Zero Emission with High Performance Indoor Environment, http://school-of-the-future.eu

    work page

  14. [14]

    “Tackling the energy challenge together toolkit a toolkit for communi- ties, local authorities, and schools on how to raise awareness or build capacity on sustainable energy issuesy,” http://en.seacs.eu, (accessed on October 22, 2018)

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    The umi-sci-ed platform: Integrating umi technologies to promote science education,

    C. Goumopoulos, O. Fragou, N. Chanos, C. Delistavrou, I. Zaharakis, V . Stefanis, and A. Kameas, “The umi-sci-ed platform: Integrating umi technologies to promote science education,” 01 2018, pp. 78–90

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    An IoT-based gamified approach for reducing occupants energy wastage in public buildings,

    T. Papaioannou, N. Dimitriou, K. Vasilakis, A. Schoofs, M. Nikiforakis, F. Pursche, N. Deliyski, A. Taha, D. Kotsopoulos, C. Bardaki, and et al., “An IoT-based gamified approach for reducing occupants energy wastage in public buildings,” Sensors, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 537, Feb 2018. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s18020537

    work page doi:10.3390/s18020537 2018

  17. [17]

    Entropy project, http://entropy-project.eu,

    “Entropy project, http://entropy-project.eu,” (accessed on April, 2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Enabling sustainability and energy awareness in schools based on iot and real-world data,

    G. Mylonas, D. Amaxilatis, I. Chatzigiannakis, A. Anagnostopoulos, and F. Paganelli, “Enabling sustainability and energy awareness in schools based on iot and real-world data,” IEEE Pervasive Computing , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 53–63, Oct.-Dec. 2018. [Online]. Available: doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MPRV .2018.2873855

    work page doi:10.1109/mprv 2018

  19. [19]

    An educational iot lab kit and tools for energy awareness in european schools,

    G. Mylonas, D. Amaxilatis, L. Pocero, I. Markelis, J. Hofstaetter, and P. Koulouris, “An educational iot lab kit and tools for energy awareness in european schools,” International Journal of Child- Computer Interaction , vol. 20, pp. 43 – 53, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212868918301004

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    An iot-based solution for monitoring a fleet of educational buildings focusing on energy efficiency,

    D. Amaxilatis, O. Akrivopoulos, G. Mylonas, and I. Chatzigiannakis, “An iot-based solution for monitoring a fleet of educational buildings focusing on energy efficiency,” Sensors, vol. 17, no. 10, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/17/10/2296

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Open source iot meter devices for smart and energy-efficient school buildings,

    L. Pocero, D. Amaxilatis, G. Mylonas, and I. Chatzigiannakis, “Open source iot meter devices for smart and energy-efficient school buildings,” HardwareX, vol. 1, pp. 54 – 67, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468067216300293

    work page 2017