MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308198113 · doi:10.3390/su142114385

Prediction of Thermal Energy Demand Using Fuzzy-Based Models Synthesized with Metaheuristic Algorithms

2022· article· en· W4308198113 on OpenAlexaff
Hamzah Ali Alkhazaleh, Navid Nahi, Mohammad Hossein Hashemian, Zohreh Nazem, Wameed Deyah Shamsi, Moncef L. Nehdi

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemBenchmark (surveying)AlgorithmEnergy demandFuzzy logicParticle swarm optimizationInference systemMetaheuristicComputer scienceFuzzy inference systemGenetic algorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsMachine learningArtificial intelligenceFuzzy control system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing consumption of energy calls for proper approximation of demand towards a sustainable and cost-effective development. In this work, novel hybrid methodologies aim to predict the annual thermal energy demand (ATED) by analyzing the characteristics of the building, such as transmission coefficients of the elements, glazing, and air-change conditions. For this objective, an adaptive neuro-fuzzy-inference system (ANFIS) was optimized with equilibrium optimization (EO) and Harris hawks optimization (HHO) to provide a globally optimum training. Moreover, these algorithms were compared to two benchmark techniques, namely grey wolf optimizer (GWO) and slap swarm algorithm (SSA). The performance of the designed hybrids was evaluated using different accuracy indicators, and based on the results, ANFIS-EO and ANFIS-HHO (with respective RMSEs equal to 6.43 and 6.90 kWh·m−2·year−1 versus 9.01 kWh·m−2·year−1 for ANFIS-GWO and 11.80 kWh·m−2·year−1 for ANFIS-SSA) presented the most accurate analysis of the ATED. Hence, these models are recommended for practical usages, i.e., the early estimations of ATED, leading to a more efficient design of 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207