# Comparative Study on Load Monitoring Approaches
## 6 Conclusions  
In summary, intrusive load monitoring (ILM) and non-intrusive load monitoring (NILM) are two different approaches, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, which should be exploited depending on the expectations one may have. ILM provides more detailed and accurate information, but is more expensive and invasive to implement. Another consideration that today justifies the choice of NILM rather than ILM is the confidentiality of the data collected. Indeed, by using ILM, it is possible that sensitive information is collected, such as usage habits or device activity. To this end, it would be more appropriate to implement appropriate data privacy measures such as data encryption and access controls, in order to protect the privacy of users. As for NILM, it remains a less expensive and more scalable technique. However, it is less accurate than ILM and more prone to error, as it is based on mathematical models that may not take into account all relevant variables and may have technical limitations that restrict its reliability and accuracy. From the points presented, it is clear that no one approach is entirely satisfactory, despite the evidence on both sides. Thus, the choice of one approach over the other depends on the specific objectives that the researcher wishes to achieve on the one hand, and on the other hand, the needs expressed by the users. If the user needs precise results, ILM seems to be the best option. On the other hand, if the user wants to monitor overall energy consumption patterns and identify potential energy savings, ILM seems to be the most appropriate. From the readings done, we have chosen to adopt NILM as the approach that should underpin our research work, because, in addition to gathering the advantages presented, its drawbacks are challenges to be met, in order to contribute to its growth and maturation, so that it constitutes a revolution for energy savings in the residential sector. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Aspect** & **ILM** & **NILM** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Installation} & Requires installation of individual sensors on each & Does not require any additional hardware installation, as it collects data from existing power meters. \\  & appliance, which can be time-consuming and expensive. & The accuracy of NILM can vary depending on the complexity of the load signature and the quality of the data collected. \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Accuracy} & Provides high accuracy due to its ability to monitor & The accuracy of the ILM can vary depending on the complexity of the load signature and the quality of the data collected. \\  & energy consumption at the individual appliance level. & Provides aggregate data on overall energy consumption and does not offer detailed information on individual appliances. \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Data Collection} & Provides real-time data on the energy consumption of individual appliances, which can help identify & Provides aggregate data on overall energy consumption and does not offer detailed information on individual appliances. \\  & energy savings. & Provides aggregate data on overall energy consumption and does not offer detailed information on individual appliances. \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Cost} & Can be expensive due to the installation and & Generally less expensive since it does not require any additional hardware installation. \\  & maintenance costs associated with individual sensors. & Generally less expensive since it does not require any additional hardware installation. \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Privacy} & Requires access to individual appliances and usage & Collects data in a central location, so there are no privacy or confidentiality issues. \\  & data, which can raise privacy concerns for some users. & Scalable to larger buildings and multiple units since it collects data from existing power meters. \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Elements of comparison between intrusive and non-intrusive approaches to load monitoring.