MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410186776 · doi:10.1177/17442591251333433

Enhancing building energy performance prediction: A fusion of deep learning and first-principles simulation methods

2025· article· en· W4410186776 on OpenAlexafffund
Navid Shirzadi, Sara Gilani, Meli Stylianou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Building Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersOffice of Energy Research and Development
KeywordsFusionDeep learningEnergy (signal processing)Computer scienceArchitectural engineeringArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate energy demand prediction is essential for effective control of energy consumption and generation, enabling optimal energy management and reducing emissions. This study introduces a hybrid model integrating a physics-based EnergyPlus simulation with a long short-term memory (LSTM) neural network to enhance energy demand forecasting for buildings. While physics-based models offer computational efficiency, they often result in significant discrepancies between predicted and actual energy demand. Conversely, LSTM models improve prediction accuracy but struggle with peak forecasting. The proposed hybrid approach leverages the strengths of both methods, combining simulation outputs with LSTM predictions to reduce the normalized mean absolute error (NMAE) and improve peak predictions. A feature importance algorithm is incorporated to identify key variables, such as water heater cycle on count, that influence peak values during the LSTM training process. The hybrid model demonstrates a 5% and 20% reduction in normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) compared to the standalone LSTM and simulation models, respectively, during the warmest week of summer. Slight improvements are also observed during winter, with NRMSE reductions of 3% and 11% for the coldest week. Additionally, the hybrid model outperforms the single LSTM in predicting peak energy demand across various thresholds, as evidenced by superior F 1-scores, precision and recall. While the model is less effective during certain winter periods, its overall robustness in predicting peaks and valleys across seasonal variations underscores its utility for real-world applications.

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 score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Building PhysicsSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207