To do rigorous NILM research, we need lots of high-quality disaggregated electricity data. This is especially true if we want to run a good NILM competition.
There are now 20 public datasets listed on the NILM wiki. But all real data suffers from problems which make it problematic for use in a NILM competition. These problems include:
- Incorrectly labelled sub-meters. e.g. a channel labelled “washing machine” actually records the kitchen radio. Or: the “washing machine” channel starts off recording the washer but, half way through the dataset, the homeowner accidentally swaps smart plugs and the channel labelled “washer” starts recording the tumble drier instead. There are many more ways in which channels can be incorrectly labelled.
- Some appliances within each home in the dataset are not sub-metered. Indeed, very few datasets even attempt to rigorously sub-meter every appliance.
- Little consistency across homes with respect to which appliances are metered. e.g. House 1 might have PV panels and an EV but none of the other homes in the dataset have these. How do we split this dataset up into separate “training” and “testing” datasets if we want to test generalisation across homes?
- Sampling bias. For example, in my dataset (UK-DALE), the five homes were homes of Imperial MSc / PhD students. Hardly a representative sample from the UK! In general, NILM datasets have a lack of geographical diversity (for example, there are no public datasets from Russia, China, Africa or Brazil) and a lack of demographic diversity.
- No ground-truth labels for important NILM use-cases. For example, one important NILM use-case might be to tell people when their fridge’s door seal needs replacing. But how can we measure the performance of NILM algorithms at detecting failing fridges if “failing fridges” aren’t labelled in the ground truth? (See Batra, Singh & Whitehouse 2016 for a thought-provoking discussion of whether NILM can detect failing fridges.)
- Little or no coverage of unusual energy behaviours. It’s likely that “average” domestic users won’t reduce their energy consumption when given an itemised energy bill (Kelly & Knottenbelt 2016). But one group of users who might be enabled by NILM to save lots of energy is users who accidentally or mistakenly use energy in an unusual way - such as using their electric oven as an AGA and leaving it on 24/7 just in case they fancy doing some baking. How can we measure NILM performance at detecting unusual behaviour if that unusual behaviour never happens in our dataset?
- Little or no data from homes where appliances change over time. e.g. the old fridge is moved into the basement and a second, new fridge is added. Or the old CRT TV is replaced by a shiny new OLED TV. Or grandma moves into the spare room along with a bunch of her appliances and the whole home’s energy behaviour changes. Or, in a rented flat, the tenants change and so almost all the appliances change. etc. etc.
- Little or no labelling of behaviours and individual energy users.
- Spurious readings / cross-talk / broken meters.
- Gaps in time.
These problems aren’t the result of dataset authors being lazy or careless. It doesn’t matter how much money and engineering you throw at recording a “good” dataset. These problems are pretty much inherent in recording data from real homes. Yet these problems also pose a significant hurdle to conducting rigorous NILM research.
What if we could artificially generate an endless amount of “near-perfect”, realistic disaggregated data. And what if we could select to generate data for a range of NILM scenarios (e.g. failing fridges; or data from different countries; or homes where appliances change over time).
This isn’t a entirely new idea, of course. There have been several papers on simulating appliance electricity data from the ground up (where the electricity consumption of individual appliances is simulated using models of the internal components of appliances; for an excellent and recent example see Chen, Irwin & Shenoy 2016).
A complementary approach to simulating appliances from the ground-up would be to exploit the fact that we now have 20 datasets of disaggregated appliance electricity consumption. We could carefully dismantle these datasets and then re-combine them in endless ways. We’d extract real appliance signatures for single appliance “activations” and re-combine these real appliance activations in novel but realistic configurations.
These two approaches have complementary strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps the “ultimate” simulator would combine ground-up appliance simulation with real appliance activations. For example, perhaps ground-up models do a near-perfect job of simulating fridges, and would allow us to simulate failing fridges. But perhaps ground-up simulation doesn’t work so well for washing machines so we’d use real washing machine data. Or, if we got really clever, we could chop up real washing machine data for the hard-to-simulate parts (perhaps the motor is hard to simulate) and combine short samples of real motor data with ground-up simulations of the washing machine’s heating element (which might be easy to simulate).
As well as simulating the appliance energy usage at high temporal resolution, we also need to model when appliances are used. This is quite well studied in the literature. The basic approach is to build simple statistical models which capture patterns such as the time of day that each appliance is used; and correlations between appliances etc. These statistical models could be trained from disaggregated electricity datasets or from high-quality appliance usage diaries. We’d then sample randomly from these models to generate novel “appliance usage scripts”. Care must be taken to include outliers: we mustn’t fall into the trap of only simulating “Mr & Mrs Average”.
Finally, we need to model which appliances are installed in each home. We’d probably want separate models for different countries and different demographic groups. These models could be trained from appliance ownership surveys or disaggregated energy datasets.
Once a realistic simulator is built, it could be used to run a NILM competition (perhaps combined with some real data).
The simulator could also enable a “NILM Gym” (inspired by OpenAI’s Gym): an open-source, downloadable tool which would enable NILM researchers to quickly validate the performance of their NILM algorithms against a range of scenarios; and to optionally share results with the community. Kind of a cross between an informal NILM competition and a unit-testing suite: every time you tweak your algorithm, you test it against data produced by the “NILM Gym” and produce a bunch of metrics for whatever range of NILM scenarios you’re currently focused on.
The NILM Gym’s list of scenarios could include “failing fridges” or “a representative sample of UK households” or “new tenant moves into rented flat and replaces almost all the appliances”. Researchers would be able to easily add or modify scenarios and metrics. Scenarios could be learnt from real data or specified by hand.
The NILM Gym could be developed rapidly. Hence it might be a good testing ground to inform the design of a more formal, yearly NILM competition.
The NILM Gym could also be used as an informal competition: If you want then you can also upload your results to a common, public website to allow the community to see your progress.
You’d be free to implement your NILM algorithms however you want: The NILM Gym would just generate data and run metrics (one of my main worries about NILMTK is that it’s too monolithic (i.e. it locks you into a walled garden): and I’m allowed to complain about that because it was largely me who pushed for a monolithic design in the first place! I now regret that design decision! I suspect NILMTK would have been easier to use if it were a collection of small, well-defined tools, which could easily be combined with each user’s own code and tools).
I plan to be spend November and December exploring whether we can build a “data augmentation tool” to generate an effectively infinite amount of disaggregated electricity data. (I definitely won’t be able to implement all the ideas describe above; but I hope to build a proof-of-concept). I welcome your thoughts!
(There’s more discussion on NILMTK issue #26 “Simulator of disaggregated domestic electricity demand at 1 Hz” and in this Google Doc. If you’d like to comment on these ideas then please do so on the NILMTK issue or on the Google Doc. Thanks!).