From Thermal Preference Prediction to Adaptive Thermal Intervention: A Reinforcement Learning Approach Using Physiological and Environmental Sensing
Authors: Isibor Kennedy Ihianle, Emmanuel Manu, Ehsan Asnaashari, Mojgan Jadidi, Pedro Machado, Amrit Sagoo, Ahmad Lotfi
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, NG11 8NS, United Kingdom · York University, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada
Personalised thermal comfort is essential for occupant wellbeing and for the development of more responsive building-control strategies, yet conventional Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems rely on static setpoints and population-level comfort models that fail to capture individual physiological variability. This paper presents a two-stage personalised thermal comfort approach integrating multimodal physiological and environmental sensing with reinforcement learning-based decision-making.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Proposed two-stage personalised thermal comfort architecture. Stage 1 develops a personalised comfort oracle for thermal preference prediction using physiological, body-proximity and weather-derived features. Stage 2 embeds the comfort oracle within a reinforcement learning control module to recommend an equivalent environmental-temperature intervention that maximises predicted comfort while penalising unnecessary or excessive control actions.
Figure 2: Comparison of the candidate Stage 1 Comfort Oracle models across the four feature representations. Mean prediction performance is reported using (a) Accuracy, (b) Macro F 1 -score and (c) Cohen’s κ , averaged over all participants. Phys denotes physiological features only; Phys+60 denotes physiological features with 60-minute environmental descriptors; Phys+480 denotes physiological features with 480-minute environmental descriptors; and Phys+60+480 combines both environmental contexts.
Model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
RF
0.61/ 0.39/ 0.20
0.61/ 0.32/ 0.04
0.65/ 0.39/ 0.15
0.84/ 0.46/ -0.09
0.84/ 0.42/ 0.27
0.59/ 0.35/ 0.15
0.75/ 0.34/ 0.11
0.89/ 0.31/ 0.00
0.82/ 0.41/ 0.23
0.69/ 0.34/ 0.07
0.88/ 0.31/ -0.03
0.53/ 0.51/ 0.08
0.68/ 0.55/ 0.14
0.83/ 0.30/ 0.00
GB
0.68/ 0.43/ 0.32
0.59/ 0.54/ 0.18
0.69/ 0.49/ 0.29
0.91/ 0.32/ -0.01
0.82/ 0.42/ 0.23
0.39/ 0.27/ 0.06
0.70/ 0.37/ 0.11
0.89/ 0.40/ 0.17
0.76/ 0.35/ 0.05
0.67/ 0.43/ 0.16
0.86/ 0.42/ 0.10
0.62/ 0.61/ 0.25
0.66/ 0.59/ 0.18
0.83/ 0.36/ 0.11
ET
0.65/ 0.43/ 0.30
0.53/ 0.41/ 0.07
0.65/ 0.42/ 0.18
0.78/ 0.44/ -0.11
0.85/ 0.47/ 0.38
0.53/ 0.38/ 0.21
0.70/ 0.34/ 0.06
0.89/ 0.31/ 0.00
0.78/ 0.35/ 0.06
0.67/ 0.39/ 0.11
0.86/ 0.31/ -0.04
0.65/ 0.64/ 0.31
0.68/ 0.52/ 0.10
0.83/ 0.30/ 0.00
Table 1: Participant-level Stage 1 performance for Physiology + Env480. Values are Accuracy/Macro F 1 /Cohen’s κ .
FeatureShort
Phys
Phys+60
Phys+480
Phys+60+480
ID
1
GB: 0.68/0.45/0.36
ET: 0.58/0.39/0.17
ET: 0.65/0.43/0.30
ET: 0.55/0.36/0.08
2
ET: 0.39/0.36/-0.05
ET: 0.49/0.37/-0.00
ET: 0.53/0.41/0.07
ET: 0.57/0.41/0.05
3
ET: 0.62/0.38/0.11
GB: 0.69/0.51/0.31
GB: 0.69/0.49/0.29
GB: 0.69/0.49/0.29
4
RF: 0.93/0.48/0.00
RF: 0.87/0.47/-0.07
RF: 0.84/0.46/-0.09
RF: 0.82/0.45/-0.10
5
GB: 0.85/0.47/0.38
GB: 0.82/0.42/0.23
GB: 0.82/0.42/0.23
GB: 0.80/0.42/0.20
Table 2: Selected personalised Comfort Oracle for each participant and feature representation. Values are Model: Accuracy/Macro F 1 /Cohen’s κ .
Comparison
Metric
Test
Statistic
p -value
Feature sets
Accuracy
Friedman
0.250
0.969
Feature sets
Macro F 1
Friedman
4.887
0.180
Feature sets
Cohen’s κ
Friedman
2.758
0.430
Models
Accuracy
Friedman
1.815
0.404
Models
Macro F 1
Friedman
2.286
0.319
Models
Cohen’s κ
Friedman
3.857
0.145
Table 3: Statistical comparison of Stage 1 prediction performance using Friedman tests across participants.
Oracle
Controller
Best Variant
Comfort
Reward
HVAC ΔT
Reward/Energy
Comfort/Energy
Decrease
No Change
Increase
Phys+60
CB
Bandit Comfort
0.700
89.942
3.342
26.917
0.210
0.093
0.817
0.090
Phys+60
QL
QL alpha=0.16
0.668
84.442
2.628
32.132
0.254
0.019
0.978
0.003
Phys+60
DQN
DQN lr=0.0002
0.678
84.382
3.343
25.238
0.203
0.417
0.386
0.198
Phys+480
CB
Bandit Comfort
0.684
87.417
3.602
24.269
0.190
0.084
0.781
0.134
Phys+480
QL
QL alpha=0.16
0.658
82.764
2.642
31.324
0.249
0.019
0.978
0.003
Phys+480
DQN
DQN lr=0.0001
0.664
82.374
3.225
25.542
0.206
0.477
0.427
0.096
Table 4: Best Stage 2 controller variants across oracle feature representations. The best variant within each controller family was selected using mean reward.
Figure 4: Comparison of representative closed-loop proxy thermal-policy behaviour across two subjects under Phys+480. In the plotted legends, “Actual room temp” denotes the observed temperature proxy derived from the dataset, while “Recommended room temp” denotes the controller-generated equivalent environmental-temperature proxy. These trajectories do not represent measured room-temperature regulation or physical HVAC actuation.
Figure 5: Comparison of representative closed-loop proxy thermal-policy behaviour across two subjects under Phys+60. In the plotted legends, “Actual room temp” denotes the observed temperature proxy derived from the dataset, while “Recommended room temp” denotes the controller-generated equivalent environmental-temperature proxy. These trajectories do not represent measured room-temperature regulation or physical HVAC actuation.
Figure 6: Comparison of representative closed-loop proxy thermal-policy behaviour across two subjects under Phys+60+480. In the plotted legends, “Actual room temp” denotes the observed temperature proxy derived from the dataset, while “Recommended room temp” denotes the controller-generated equivalent environmental-temperature proxy. These trajectories do not represent measured room-temperature regulation or physical HVAC actuation.
Oracle
Controller
Best Variant
Accuracy
Balanced Accuracy
Macro F1
Cohen’s kappa
Phys+60
CB
Bandit Comfort
0.622
0.369
0.367
0.043
Phys+60
QL
QL alpha=0.16
0.691
0.332
0.285
-0.012
Phys+60
DQN
DQN lr=0.0002
0.442
0.458
0.395
0.129
Phys+480
CB
Bandit Comfort
0.604
0.368
0.374
0.045
Phys+480
QL
QL alpha=0.16
0.688
0.327
0.278
-0.021
Phys+480
DQN
DQN lr=0.0001
0.412
0.392
0.328
0.052
Table 5: Action agreement performance of the selected Stage 2 controllers. Only the best variant from each controller family, as selected in Table 4 , is reported.
Oracle
Metric
Test
N
Statistic
p -value
Phys+60
Comfort
Friedman
14
18.43
0.0000996
Phys+60
Reward
Friedman
14
22.29
0.0000145
Phys+60
Reward/Energy
Friedman
14
15.86
0.0003603
Phys+60
HVAC ΔT
Friedman
14
18.43
0.0000996
Phys+60
Action switch rate
Friedman
14
19.13
0.0000701
Phys+480
Comfort
Friedman
14
20.76
0.0000310
Table 6: Friedman statistical comparison of the selected Stage 2 controllers across participants for each oracle feature representation.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Table A.1 : Participant-level Stage 1 performance across all feature representations. Values are Accuracy/Macro F 1 /Cohen’s κ .
Oracle
Controller
Variant
Comfort
Reward
HVAC ΔT
Reward/Energy
Comfort/Energy
Decrease
No Change
Increase
Phys+60
CB
Bandit Comfort
0.700
89.942
3.342
26.917
0.210
0.093
0.817
0.090
Phys+60
CB
Bandit Balanced
0.698
89.344
3.202
27.900
0.218
0.087
0.838
0.075
Phys+60
CB
Bandit Energy
0.695
88.703
3.100
28.616
0.224
0.081
0.855
0.064
Phys+60
QL
QL alpha=0.16
0.668
84.442
2.628
32.132
0.254
0.019
0.978
0.003
Phys+60
QL
QL alpha=0.08
0.667
84.314
2.712
31.087
0.246
0.031
0.960
0.009
Phys+60
QL
QL alpha=0.05
0.667
84.112
2.708
31.059
0.246
0.031
0.954
0.015
Appendix
Table A.2 : Stage 2 controller performance across all oracle feature representations and controller variants.
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning control optimizes building energy use while maintaining thermal comfort, indoor air quality, and equipment safety.
Deploying advanced HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) controllers at scale remains difficult because performance often depends on accurate building models or per-site retuning. We propose NOMAD-RL (Neural Online Meta-Adaptation for Dynamics), a general-purpose Reinforcement Learning (RL) controller designed to transfer across heterogeneous thermal zones through a universal, non-invasive thermostat interface. The controller acts on temperature setpoints from zone measurements and forecasts, while a recurrent policy supports online adaptation under partial observability. Our main contribution is an adaptive domain randomization scheme based on physics-informed normalizing flows, which models correlated and multimodal distributions of thermal-zone parameters while maintaining physical plausibility and controllability. This produces a realistic and progressively adaptive training curriculum that improves transfer across buildings. We evaluate NOMAD-RL against a constant-setpoint PID controller, RL without domain randomization, and MPC in single- and multi-zone settings. NOMAD-RL consistently outperforms the PID and non-randomized RL baselines, and approaches the performance of a well-tuned MPC, especially in the more challenging multi-zone case. These results highlight the potential of adaptive, physics-informed domain randomization for robust and transferable HVAC control.
Pablo Boitel, Kun Zhang
École de technologie supérieure (ÉTS) Montréal, Québec, Canada
Buildings account for roughly one-third of global energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Optimizing indoor climate systems plays a critical role for urban climate mitigation aligned with UN Sustainable Development Goals 11 and 13. However, indoor delayed thermodynamic responses and partial observability severely hinder existing methods, which are primarily limited by implicit thermal inertia, occupancy dynamic prediction, and cumulative prediction errors, especially for out-of-distribution environments. In practice, these challenges are further exacerbated by the high cost and privacy burden of dense indoor sensing, forcing operators to collect only limited data in a single operating regime while expecting controllers to generalize reliably across unseen seasons and climate regions. To address this problem, we propose ADAPT, a physics-aware conditional diffusion indoor environmental world model for HVAC control. The model predicts a short-horizon held-action thermal baseline to capture the latent thermal inertia of the buildings. The diffusion backbone utilizes the robustness of generative models, while a learnable multi-zone heat-balance regularizer constrains generated trajectories to satisfy transferable building thermodynamics without requiring known building geometry or manually calibrated thermal parameters. A credit assignment is then design for the downstream reinforcement learning. Extensive experiments on SemibuildingSim and Sinergym demonstrate that ADAPT reduces HVAC energy consumption by 7.3% and occupant discomfort by 30.2% compared with state-of-the-art baselines under IID control. Under OOD control scenarios spanning unseen seasons and climate regions, ADAPT maintains robust performance with only marginal degradation relative to its IID performance, substantially outperforming existing methods in transfer robustness.
Xu Yang, Kailai Sun, Dianyu Zhong +1
Department of Automation Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · SMART, Singapore Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA, USA
Multi-zone HVAC control is a spatial decision problem in which indoor thermal evolution and control decisions depend not only on outdoor conditions and internal heat gains but also on zone layout, physical adjacency, and delayed thermal interactions across the building. Recent LLM-based HVAC controllers have shown that prompt-based control is feasible. However, these methods typically rely on task descriptions, observation values, short textual feedback, or unstructured retrieval, which limits their ability to reason about zone coupling, thermal response, and building dynamics. This paper presents a thermodynamics-aware LLM control framework for a five-zone EnergyPlus building simulation. The controller is grounded in a physics-informed spatial knowledge graph derived from Brick-style building semantics and linked with recent interaction history. At each control step, the model receives the current building state, graph-structured spatial context, and recent environment-controller history, enabling it to make decisions that reflect both building structure and short-term thermal evolution. We evaluate the framework against standard control baselines and several LLM-based alternatives. Results show that the proposed approach achieves the best overall energy-comfort trade-off and the lowest PMV violation while maintaining energy-efficient operation.
Kirtan Bhatt, Xiachong Lin, Matthew Amos +2
UNSW Sydney · Sydney, NSW, Australia · University of New South Wales +2