Predicting Residential Energy Consumption in South Africa Using Ensemble Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents ensemble machine learning (ML) models for predicting residential energy consumption in South Africa. By combining the best features of individual ML models, ensemble models reduce the drawbacks of each model and improve prediction accuracy. We present four ensemble models: ensemble by averaging (EA), ensemble by stacking each estimator (ESE), ensemble by boosting (EB), and ensemble by voting estimator (EVE). These models are built on top of Random Forest (RF) and Decision Tree (DT). These base predictor models leverage historical energy consumption patterns to capture temporal intricacies, including seasonal variations and rolling averages. In addition, we employed feature engineering methodologies to further enhance their predictive abilities. The accuracy of each ensemble model was evaluated by assessing various performance indicators, including the mean squared error (MSE), mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and coefficient of determination R 2 . Overall, the findings illustrate the efficiency of ensemble learning models in providing accurate predictions for residential energy consumption. This study provides valuable insights for researchers and practitioners in predicting energy consumption in residential buildings and the benefits of using ensemble learning models in the building and energy research domains.
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.
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 it