Estimation of Room-Level Cooling Energy in Hot/Arid Climate by Machine Learning-Based Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Building energy models (BEM) are developed for understanding a building’s energy performance. A meta-model of the whole building energy analysis is often used for the BEM calibration and energy prediction. The literature review shows that studies with a focus on the development of room-level meta-models are missing. This study aims to address this research gap through a case study of a residential building with 138 apartments in Doha, Qatar. Five parameters, including cooling setpoint, number of occupants, lighting power density, equipment power density, and interior solar reflectance, are selected as input parameters to create ninety-six different scenarios. Three machine-learning models are used as meta-models to generalize the relationship between cooling energy and the model parameters, including Multiple Linear Regression, Support Vector Regression, and Artificial Neural Networks. The three meta-models’ prediction accuracies are evaluated by the Normalized Mean Bias Error (NMBE), Coefficient of Variation of the Root Mean Squared Error CV (RMSE), and R square (R2). The results show that the ANN model performs best. A new generic BEM is then established to validate the meta-model. The results indicate that the proposed meta-model is accurate and efficient in predicting the cooling energy in summer and transitional months for a building with a similar floor configuration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".