Examining the LEED Rating System Using Inverse Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system is the most recognized green building certification program in North America. In order to be LEED certified, a building must earn a sufficient number of points, which are obtained through achieving certain credits or design elements. In LEED versions 1 and 2, each credit was worth one point. In version 3, the LEED system changed so that certain credits were worth more than one point. In this study, we develop an inverse optimization approach to examine how building designers intrinsically valued design elements in LEED version 2. Because of the change in the point system between version 2 and version 3, we aim to determine whether building designers actually valued each credit equally, and if not, whether their valuations matched the values in version 3. Due to the large dimensionality of the inverse optimization problem, we develop an approximation to improve tractability. We apply our method to 306 different LEED-certified buildings in the continental United States. We find that building designers did not value all credits equally and that other factors such as cost, building type, and size, and certification level play a role in how the credits are valued. Overall, inverse optimization may provide a new method to assess historical data and support the design of future versions of LEED.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".