ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Reproducible Benchmark-Validity Audit and Calibration Study for Cross-Home Fault Diagnosis in Smart-Home Sensor Systems.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diagnosing faults across different smart homes is hard: sensor names, layouts, and daily routines differ from home to home, so a model trained in one home rarely works in another. We study an ontology-guided framework for cross-home fault diagnosis, but our main contribution is a benchmark-validity audit-a systematic check of whether the datasets used to evaluate such systems actually measure fault detection. Using the public Center for Advanced Studies in Adaptive Systems (CASAS) smart-home datasets (homes hh101-hh110) and real household power data (HomeC, UMass Smart*), we show that much of the high cross-home accuracy reported on these benchmarks is an artifact of features that re-encode the labelling rules rather than evidence of transfer: when those features are removed, the macro-averaged F1 score (macro-F1) collapses toward the level obtained with randomly permuted labels. We therefore treat these datasets as semantic-transfer and benchmark-validity studies, not fault-detection results. The framework's distinguishing component is a counterfactual calibration layer that returns a probability for its recommended intervention; on a controlled structural causal model with known interventions, it achieves a Brier skill score of 0.369 for intervention-success probabilities. Separately, on the simulation-derived LBNL Fan Coil Unit benchmark, a conventional gradient-boosted multiclass fault classifier achieves accuracy comparable to a random forest but about six times lower expected calibration error (0.026 vs. 0.159) under a scenario-matched split. This calibration advantage does not generalize to held-out simulation scenarios, where the calibration error rises to 0.372; we report this negative result as a limitation. We are explicit about scope: the ontology reasoner and the real-stream causal graph are only partially implemented, and the counterfactual recommendations are validated only under controlled or simulated conditions, not in deployed homes. The results are intended for researchers who build or benchmark sensor-based fault-diagnosis models, for dataset curators, and for practitioners who need calibrated rather than merely accurate outputs. All code, the proxy-label rules, and the leakage audit are released.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.