Surrogate Modeling for Building Design: Energy and Cost Prediction Compared to Simulation-Based Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".