Stochastic Optimal Device Sizing Model for Zero Energy Buildings: A Parallel Computing Solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Byconsuming35% of the final global energy, buildings are among major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. If the economic justification challenge is addressed, zero energy buildings (ZEB), which are defined as buildings that generate as much renewable-based energy as they consume annually, can be a promising solution for energy efficiency improvement in the building sector. In this article, we propose a stochastic ZEB device sizing model considering uncertain parameters (i.e., building's electrical and thermal demands, solar irradiation, and outdoor temperature) and their correlation. The proposed model finds the optimal size of the thermal and electrical devices considering their nonlinear behaviors and temperature-dependent dynamics. Furthermore, two parallel computing-based solution algorithms (i.e., parallelism in the algebraic level using Schur complement decomposition and parallelism in the problem (scenario) level by progressive hedging) are proposed to solve the stochastic model. Using the real historical data, numerical studies on the Woodward library building, located on the University of British Columbia campus, illustrate the efficacy of the solution algorithms to handle large-scale nonlinear programming models with more than 32.8 million variables, which is the largest one reported in the literature so far.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".