Influence of geometrical levels of detail and inaccurate material optical properties on daylight simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimizing the built environment via simulations of building models hinges on standardizing data acquisition. In this research, we put forward distinct levels of detail for geometry and material inputs, specifically tailored for indoor daylight applications. We primarily focus on understanding the uncertainties arising from imprecise estimations of material optical properties and incomplete geometrical inputs in climate-based indoor daylight simulations. Employing a Monte Carlo approach, we analyzed six office and teaching spaces, creating 20 variations for each by altering geometrical completeness and material accuracy. The technique of excluding non-permanent objects below certain sizes in four graduated steps was used to derive and test the impact of various geometrical levels of detail. Our findings reveal that different levels of geometrical completeness lead to errors ranging from 1.08% to 18.05%. Additionally, a twofold increase in simulation time was noted when geometrical detail was enhanced relative to the most basic model. Errors stemming from imprecise definitions of material optical properties showed a normal distribution. The uncertainty in simulation outcomes showed a linear rise with increasing input material uncertainty, lying between 10% to 30%, depending on space configurations. We observed heightened uncertainty near openings, attributed to window transmittance effects. The research underscores that daylight predictions are markedly more sensitive to transmittance uncertainties than to those in reflectance, regardless of the window-to-floor ratio. These insights may help to guide a more efficient data acquisition process of indoor spaces for daylight 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".