MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Data-driven short-term load forecasting for heating and cooling demand in office buildings

2019· article· en· W2991301930 on OpenAlexaffabout
Araz Ashouri, Zixiao Shi, H. Burak Gunay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive modelTerm (time)Demand responseTime horizonComputer scienceArtificial neural networkCooling loadPeak loadElectricityMeteorologyEconometricsEngineeringMachine learningMathematical optimizationAutomotive engineeringEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Short-term forecasts of energy demand in buildings serve as key information for various operational schemes such as predictive control and demand response programs. Despite this, developing forecast models for heating and cooling loads has received little attention in the literature compared to models for electricity load. In this paper, we present data-driven approaches to forecast hourly heating and cooling energy use in office buildings based on temporal, autoregressive, and exogenous variables. The proposed models calculate hourly loads for a horizon between one hour and 12 hours ahead. Individual models based on artificial neural networks (ANN) and change-point models (CPM) as well as a hybrid of the two methods are developed. A case study is conducted based on hourly thermal load data collected from several office buildings located on the same campus in Ottawa, Canada. The models are trained with more than two years of hourly energy-use data and tested on a separate part of the dataset to enable unbiased validation. The results show that the ANN model can achieve higher forecasting accuracy for the longest forecast horizon and outperforms the results obtained by a Naïve approach and the CPM. However, the performance of the hybrid CPM-ANN method is superior compared to individual models for all studied buildings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207