MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412096711 · doi:10.3390/buildings15132361

Surrogate Modeling for Building Design: Energy and Cost Prediction Compared to Simulation-Based Methods

2025· article· en· W4412096711 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersOffice of Energy Research and DevelopmentNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsSurrogate modelBuilding energy simulationReliability engineeringComputer scienceEnergy (signal processing)Energy performanceEngineeringMachine learningMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designing energy-efficient buildings is essential for reducing global energy consumption and carbon emissions. However, traditional physics-based simulation models require substantial computational resources, detailed input data, and domain expertise. To address these limitations, this study investigates the use of three machine learning-based surrogate models—Random Forest (RF), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP)—trained on a synthetic dataset of 2000 EnergyPlus-simulated building design scenarios to predict both energy use intensity (EUI) and cost estimates for midrise apartment buildings in the Toronto area. All three models exhibit strong predictive performance, with R2 values exceeding 0.9 for both EUI and cost. XGBoost achieves the best performance in cost prediction on the testing dataset with a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 5.13 CAD/m2, while MLP outperforms others in EUI prediction with a testing RMSE of 0.002 GJ/m2. In terms of computational efficiency, the surrogate models significantly outperform a physics-based simulation model, with MLP running approximately 340 times faster and XGBoost and RF achieving over 200 times speedup. This study also examines the effect of training dataset size on model performance, identifying a point of diminishing returns where further increases in data size yield minimal accuracy gains but substantially higher training times. To enhance model interpretability, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis is used to quantify feature importance, revealing how different model types prioritize design parameters. A parametric design configuration analysis further evaluates the models’ sensitivity to changes in building envelope features. Overall, the findings demonstrate that machine learning-based surrogate models can serve as fast, accurate, and interpretable alternatives to traditional simulation methods, supporting efficient decision-making during early-stage building design.

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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.279 · 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