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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".