CRISP-DM-Based Data-Driven Approach for Building Energy Prediction Utilizing Indoor and Environmental Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significant energy consumption associated with the built environment demands comprehensive energy prediction modelling. Leveraging their ability to capture intricate patterns without extensive domain knowledge, supervised data-driven approaches present a marked advantage in adaptability over traditional physical-based building energy models. This study employs various machine learning models to predict energy consumption for an office building in Berkeley, California. To enhance the accuracy of these predictions, different feature selection techniques, including principal component analysis (PCA), decision tree regression (DTR), and Pearson correlation analysis, were adopted to identify key attributes of energy consumption and address collinearity. The analyses yielded nine influential attributes: heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system operating parameters, indoor and outdoor environmental parameters, and occupancy. To overcome missing occupancy data in the datasets, we investigated the possibility of occupancy-based Wi-Fi prediction using different machine learning algorithms. The results of the occupancy prediction modelling indicate that Wi-Fi can be used with acceptable accuracy in predicting occupancy count, which can be leveraged to analyze occupant comfort and enhance the accuracy of building energy models. Six machine learning models were tested for energy prediction using two different datasets: one before and one after occupancy prediction. Using a 10-fold cross-validation with an 8:2 training-to-testing ratio, the Random Forest algorithm emerged superior, exhibiting the highest R2 value of 0.92 and the lowest RMSE of 3.78 when occupancy data were included. Additionally, an error propagation analysis was conducted to assess the impact of the occupancy-based Wi-Fi prediction model’s error on the energy prediction model. The results indicated that Wi-Fi-based occupancy prediction can improve the data inputs for building energy models, leading to more accurate energy consumption predictions. The findings underscore the potential of integrating the developed energy prediction models with fault detection systems, model predictive controllers, and energy load shape analysis, ultimately enhancing energy management practices.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".