skip to main content
10.5555/2484920.2485073acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaamasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

TESLA: an energy-saving agent that leverages schedule flexibility

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 May 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

This innovative application paper presents TESLA, an agent-based application for optimizing the energy use in commercial buildings. TESLA's key insight is that adding flexibility to event/meeting schedules can lead to significant energy savings. TESLA provides three key contributions: (i) three online scheduling algorithms that consider flexibility of people's preferences for energy-efficient scheduling of incrementally/dynamically arriving meetings and events; (ii) an algorithm to effectively identify key meetings that lead to significant energy savings by adjusting their flexibility; and (iii) surveys of real users that indicate that TESLA's assumptions exist in practice. TESLA was evaluated on data of over 110,000 meetings held at nine campus buildings during eight months in 2011-2012 at USC and SMU. These results show that, compared to the current systems, TESLA can substantially reduce overall energy consumption.

References

  1. Average energy prices in the los angeles area. http://www.bls.gov/ro9/cpilosa_energy.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Efficient class scheduling conserves energy. http://goo.gl/cZwgB.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. New classroom scheduling methods save energy, money for msu. http://news.msu.edu/story/6501/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Meetings in america: A study of trends, costs, and attitudes toward business travel and teleconferencing, and their impact on productivity. 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. T. Bapat, N. Sengupta, S. K. Ghai, V. Arya, Y. B. Shrinivasan, and D. Seetharam. User-sensitive scheduling of home appliances. In SIGCOMM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. R. Baron, P. Baron, and N. Miller. The relation between distraction and persuasion. Psychological Bulletin, 80(4):310, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. J. Cacioppo and R. Petty. Effects of message repetition on argument processing, recall, and persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(1):3-12, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. A. Gallagher, T. Zimmerman, and S. Smith. Incremental scheduling to maximize quality in a dynamic environment. In ICAPS, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Kwak, P. Varakantham, R. Maheswaran, M. Tambe, T. Hayes, W. Wood, and B. Becerik-Gerber. Towards robust multi-objective optimization under model uncertainty for energy conservation. In AAMAS Workshop on Agent Technologies for Energy Systems (ATES), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Kwak, P. Varakantham, R. Maheswaran, M. Tambe, F. Jazizadeh, G. Kavulya, L. Klein, B. Becerik-Gerber, T. Hayes, and W. Wood. SAVES: A sustainable multiagent application to conserve building energy considering occupants. In AAMAS, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. J. McCullough and T. Ostrom. Repetition of highly similar messages and attitude change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3):395, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. J. Tsai, Z. Yin, J. young Kwak, D. Kempe, C. Kiekintveld, and M. Tambe. Urban Security: Game-Theoretic Resource Allocation in Networked Physical Domains. In AAAI, pages 881-886, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. N. Policella, S. F. Smith, A. Cesta, and A. Oddi. Incremental scheduling to maximize quality in a dynamic environment. In ICAPS, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. P. Scerri, D. V. Pynadath, and M. Tambe. Towards adjustable autonomy for the real world. JAIR, 17:171-228, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. K. C. Sou, J. Weimer, H. Sandberg, and K. H. Johansson. Scheduling smart home appliances using mixed integer linear programming. In CDC-ECC, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. S. Stein, E. Gerding, V. Robu, and N. Jennings. A model-based online mechanism with pre-commitment and its application to electric vehicle charging. In AAMAS, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. Wainer, P. R. F. Jr., and E. R. Constantino. Scheduling meetings through multi-agent negotiations. Decision Support Systems, 44(1), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. W. Wood and D. Neal. The habitual consumer. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19:579-592, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. G. Xiong, C. Chen, S. Kishore, and A. Yener. Smart (in-home) power scheduling for demand response on the smart grid. In ISGT, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. TESLA: an energy-saving agent that leverages schedule flexibility

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      AAMAS '13: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems
      May 2013
      1500 pages
      ISBN:9781450319935

      Publisher

      International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

      Richland, SC

      Publication History

      • Published: 6 May 2013

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      AAMAS '13 Paper Acceptance Rate140of599submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate1,155of5,036submissions,23%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader