Selecting durable building envelope systems with machine learning assisted hygrothermal simulations database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hygrothermal simulations provide insight into the energy performance and moisture durability of building envelope components under dynamic conditions. The inputs required for hygrothermal simulations are extensive, and carrying out simulations and analyses requires expert knowledge. An expert system, the Building Science Advisor (BSA), has been developed to predict the performance and select the energy-efficient and durable building envelope systems for different climates. The BSA consists of decision rules based on expert opinions and thousands of parametric simulation results for selected wall systems. The number of potential wall systems results in millions, too many to simulate all of them. We present how machine learning can help predict durability data, such as mold growth, while minimizing the number of simulations needed to run. The simulation results are used for training and validation of machine learning tools for predicting wall durability. We tested Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Gradient Boosted Decision Trees (GBDT) for their applicability and model accuracy. Models developed with both methods showed adequate prediction performance (root mean square error of 0.195 and 0.209, respectively). Finally, we introduce how the information supports guidance for envelope design via an easy-to-use web-based tool that does not require the end-user to run hygrothermal simulations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".