A Comprehensive Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Predicting Heating and Cooling Loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The continuous increase in energy consumption has brought worldwide attention to its significant environmental effect, which is triggered by the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, and rapid climate change. As such, more energy efficient buildings are required to minimize the energy consumption of heating and cooling. The present study introduces a set of machine learning-based models to predict the heating and cooling loads in buildings. This includes back-propagation artificial neural network, generalized regression neural network, radial basis neural network, radial kernel support vector machines and ANOVA kernel support vector machines. The comparisons were conducted as per mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), mean absolute error (MAE), relative absolute error (RAE), root relative squared error (RRSE) and root-mean squared error (RMSE). The significances of the capacities of the machine learning models are evaluated using two-tailed student’s t-tests. Eventually, a holistic evaluation of the machine learning models is conducted using average ranking algorithm. Results demonstrate that the radial basis function network outperformed the afore-mentioned machine learning models significantly.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".