Egwim, C N; Alaka, H; Egunjobi, O O; Gomes, A and Mporas, I (2024) Comparison of machine learning algorithms for evaluating building energy efficiency using big data analytics. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 22(4), pp. 1325-1350. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to compare and evaluate the application of commonly used machine learning (ML) algorithms used to develop models for assessing energy efficiency of buildings. Design/methodology/approach: This study foremostly combined building energy efficiency ratings from several data sources and used them to create predictive models using a variety of ML methods. Secondly, to test the hypothesis of ensemble techniques, this study designed a hybrid stacking ensemble approach based on the best performing bagging and boosting ensemble methods generated from its predictive analytics. Findings: Based on performance evaluation metrics scores, the extra trees model was shown to be the best predictive model. More importantly, this study demonstrated that the cumulative result of ensemble ML algorithms is usually always better in terms of predicted accuracy than a single method. Finally, it was discovered that stacking is a superior ensemble approach for analysing building energy efficiency than bagging and boosting. Research limitations/implications: While the proposed contemporary method of analysis is assumed to be applicable in assessing energy efficiency of buildings within the sector, the unique data transformation used in this study may not, as typical of any data driven model, be transferable to the data from other regions other than the UK. Practical implications: This study aids in the initial selection of appropriate and high-performing ML algorithms for future analysis. This study also assists building managers, residents, government agencies and other stakeholders in better understanding contributing factors and making better decisions about building energy performance. Furthermore, this study will assist the general public in proactively identifying buildings with high energy demands, potentially lowering energy costs by promoting avoidance behaviour and assisting government agencies in making informed decisions about energy tariffs when this novel model is integrated into an energy monitoring system. Originality/value: This study fills a gap in the lack of a reason for selecting appropriate ML algorithms for assessing building energy efficiency. More importantly, this study demonstrated that the cumulative result of ensemble ML algorithms is usually always better in terms of predicted accuracy than a single method.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | big data analytics; buildings; energy efficiency; machine learning; predictive modelling |
| Index terms: | big data, accuracy, stacking, manager, energy cost, government agency, predictive modelling, machine learning, performance evaluation, methodology, energy monitoring, transformation, energy efficiency, energy demand, energy performance |
| Subjects: | information systems, cost management, administrative law, professional development, research methods, performance measurement, structural engineering, prediction and forecasting, energy systems, artificial intelligence, sustainability and energy, practitioner, business |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Legal Issues, Digital Applications, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here