Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Adopting Explainable-AI to investigate the impact of urban morphology design on energy and environmental performance in dry-arid climates

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A surrogate model of 2,400 simulated blocks ranks which urban morphology parameters drive energy and solar performance.

desk verdict Solid workflow and scale, but the headline WWR finding is an artifact of confounding: WWR is not varied independently in the simulation design, so the paper's top-ranked 'design parameter' is really building use. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12183 v1 pith:E6F6GKNP submitted 2024-12-13 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CY

Pegah Eshraghi , Riccardo Talami , Arman Nikkhah Dehnavi , Maedeh Mirdamadi , Zahra-Sadat Zomorodian This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CY
keywords urbanmorphologybuildingenergymodelingXGBoostSHAPsensitivityanalysisdry-aridclimatesolaraccessskyviewfactor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a machine-learning surrogate trained on parametric urban-block simulations can replace slow city-scale energy simulation long enough to rank design levers. It uses 2,400 simulated blocks, 30 morphology variables, and six performance metrics, and claims that XGBoost plus SHAP give a trustworthy ranking of which variables matter in dry-arid Tehran. The specific ranking is that building shape, window-to-wall ratio, and commercial ratio dominate energy demand, while neighboring building heights and distances control cooling demand and solar access. A sympathetic reader would care because the ranking is actionable: designers and planners can focus on a few high-impact form parameters instead of treating all thirty as equal.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-stage surrogate pipeline: first, parametric urban-block simulation generates 36,060 parcel-level outcomes (29,560 buildings and 6,500 parks) over a regular grid of blocks; then an XGBoost regression model is fitted to those outcomes and explained with SHAP values. The Shapley-value formula from cooperative game theory is what turns the fitted surrogate into a ranked, signed list of which of the 30 morphology parameters matter for each metric. SHAP values are normalized to a 0–100 scale and grouped into dominant, influential, and negligible categories so that the ranking can be read directly as design priorities.

What would settle it

Simulate or monitor a set of real Tehran blocks with geometries, materials, and orientations outside the paper's grid (for example, courtyard typologies, towers over ten floors, or non-orthogonal plots), run the same XGBoost-and-SHAP pipeline on those outputs, and check whether building shape, window-to-wall ratio, and commercial ratio remain the top energy drivers and whether southwest neighbor height and distance still lead cooling and solar access. If the rankings reorder, the paper's generalizable claim fails; if they hold, the method transfers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a synthetic corpus of 2,400 urban blocks modeled with typical Tehran configurations, geometries, and microclimate-adjusted weather, the paper shows that an XGBoost surrogate predicts six block-level outputs—cooling, heating, and lighting demand, sunlight hours on facades, PV generation, and sky view factor—with an aggregate R² around 0.92 and a training time of 3.64 seconds. SHAP analysis then attributes each output to 30 morphology parameters and ranks them. The central claim is the ranking: building shape, window-to-wall ratio, and commercial ratio are the most critical parameters for energy demand, while the heights and distances of neighboring buildings, especially in the southwest, strongly influence cooling demand and solar access, and street width dominates sky view factor.

Load-bearing premise

The rankings are only as representative as the 2,400 synthetic regular-grid blocks built from the paper's discrete design values, so the central premise is that those blocks stand in for real Tehran and other dry-arid cities well enough that the SHAP rankings carry over to actual urban fabric.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Early-stage urban design in dry-arid climates should treat building shape and window-to-wall ratio as first-order levers for cooling, heating, and lighting demand.
  • Block-level cooling and solar access can be steered by regulating the heights of and distances to southwest and southeast neighbors, not only by each building's own envelope design.
  • Because the XGBoost surrogate predicts all six metrics in seconds, a city-scale screening tool could explore thousands of block layouts that would take months with physics-based simulation alone.
  • Street width is the dominant lever for sky view factor, so urban canyon geometry should be set separately from density targets in block-scale planning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the paper reports each metric separately, so a planner cannot yet see whether the layout that minimizes cooling demand also sacrifices PV output; a Pareto-style multi-objective study is the natural next step and is not claimed here.
  • Editorial inference: the eight-directional coding of neighbor heights and distances implies orientation-specific zoning rules (taller southwest neighbors shade afternoon sun, for instance), but the paper does not translate its ranking into regulatory target values.
  • Editorial inference: because all blocks are regular-grid synthetic layouts, transfer to real irregular dry-arid cities is untested; an out-of-sample test on measured city data would be the direct validation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a workflow that combines parametric urban building energy modeling with seven machine-learning algorithms and SHAP-based feature attribution to rank 30 urban morphology parameters for six performance metrics (cooling, heating, lighting demand, sunlight hours, PV generation, and sky view factor) at the urban-block scale, using Tehran's dry-arid climate as a case study. The authors generate 2,400 synthetic regular-grid blocks (yielding 36,060 parcels), select XGBoost as the best trade-off between accuracy (R² reported up to 0.97) and training time (3.64 s), and then use SHAP to identify dominant, influential, and negligible variables, concluding that building shape, window-to-wall ratio, and commercial ratio most strongly affect energy demand, while neighboring-building heights and distances drive cooling demand and solar access.

Significance. If the results are valid, the paper offers a useful and relatively scalable pipeline for urban-scale sensitivity analysis, and its comparison of seven machine-learning models on a large synthetic simulation corpus is a practical contribution. The inclusion of environmental metrics (SVF, solar hours, PV) alongside energy metrics is a strength, as is the use of UWG-modified weather to approximate urban microclimate. However, the headline finding on window-to-wall ratio is confounded by the experimental design, and the model evaluation lacks an out-of-sample validation protocol. These issues currently limit the reliability of the quantitative rankings and of the claimed generalizability to other dry-arid regions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Tables 2 and 3] Window-to-wall ratio is not an independent design variable in the corpus: Table 2 lists parametric variables without WWR, while Table 3 fixes WWR at 35%, 40%, and 50% for residential, office, and commercial archetypes respectively. Since the same table also fixes plug/equipment loads, lighting density, and occupancy-related assumptions per archetype, WWR is perfectly collinear with building function. The SHAP attributions in §§4.2.2–4.2.4 therefore cannot separate the effect of window size from the effect of building use; a model fitted on these data will assign to WWR any variation that is actually due to archetype. The abstract's claim that WWR is among the most critical parameters is not identifiable from the reported experimental design. The authors should either introduce independent variation of WWR across archetypes or re-frame the finding as a property of the archetype dimension.
  2. [§3.2, 'Models' evaluation', Eq. (1)] Equation (1) defines R² as SSR/SST − 1, which is algebraically inverted. If SSR denotes residual sum of squares, the standard definition is R² = 1 − SSR/SST; if SSR denotes regression sum of squares, R² = SSR/SST. As written, the equation would give negative R² for any plausible fit and contradicts the reported values (e.g., R² = 0.97 for XGBoost on PV). In addition, no train/test split or cross-validation is described in §3.2 or §4.1; the reported accuracy metrics appear to be computed on the training data. An out-of-sample evaluation is needed to support the choice of XGBoost and to ensure that the SHAP rankings reflect generalizable structure rather than overfitting.
  3. [§4.2 and §5, Figure 7] The numerical results are internally inconsistent. For example, commercial ratio is reported as 81.27% for heating in §4.2.3, as 47.4% for lighting in §4.2.4, and as 27.4% for cooling and 37.1% for lighting in §5; building shape is 94.1% for cooling in §4.2.2 but the lighting section reports an 85.71% effect for 'building shape and the number of commercial floors.' Figure 7's dominance categories do not match the percentages in the text (e.g., the sunlight-hours panel lists three dominant variables while the text names four with values above 50%). Because the central contribution is a variable ranking, these discrepancies must be resolved with a single reproducible SHAP importance table and a consistent set of magnitudes.
  4. [§3.1 and §6] The synthetic corpus is built on a regular grid, two building typologies, fixed construction archetypes, and UWG-modified weather, but no part of the energy or solar results is compared with measured data from Tehran or any other dry-arid city. The conclusion that the findings offer 'generalizable insights applicable to other dry-arid regions' therefore goes beyond the evidence. I recommend either adding an external validation case (e.g., a measured block or a published benchmark) or explicitly limiting the claim to the simulated domain.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) appears garbled: the factorial numerator should be |S|! (n − |S| − 1)! / n!, but the printed expression includes a stray 'i' and is missing the second factorial.
  2. [§3.3] The SHAP normalization is performed separately for each category, which makes the percentages comparable only within a category; the thresholds of 50% and 20% are arbitrary and should be justified or tested for robustness.
  3. [Figure 5] The arrow and color coding in Figure 5 is described in the caption but is not legible in the preprint; please enlarge the figure or split it into per-metric panels.
  4. [Throughout] There are typos and terminology inconsistencies, e.g., 'Enegy efficiancy' in reference [62], and the text interchangeably uses 'commercial ratio' and 'number of commercial floors' when describing the same feature.
  5. [Abstract and §4.1] The abstract reports R²: 0.92 for XGBoost, but §4.1 reports per-metric XGBoost R² values of 0.97 (PV), 0.82 (cooling), 0.85 (heating), 0.88 (lighting), and ≥0.9 for sunlight/SVF; the abstract should state which metric or average the value refers to.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

WWR ranking reduces to building-archetype effect by construction; otherwise the UBEM+SHAP pipeline is self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, Tables 2 and 3; Sections 4.2.2-4.2.4]
    "Some parameters, such as WWR, construction materials, and internal loads, were held constant across scenarios to focus on urban morphology variables ... [Table 3 fixed values: Residential WWR 35, Office 40, Commercial 50] ... Another critical factor is WWR, with an 80.73% effect."

    WWR is not a design variable in Table 2; it is fixed per building archetype in Table 3 (35/40/50). Building use also determines occupancy, equipment loads, lighting density, and HVAC assumptions. Thus WWR is a deterministic function of the archetype/use dimension, so the XGBoost model cannot learn an independent WWR effect. SHAP's 80.7% cooling, 74.6% heating, and 77.7% lighting attributions to WWR are, by construction, the archetype/use effect relabeled as a window-geometry effect. The paper's headline claim that WWR is a critical urban-morphology parameter is therefore not derived from independent variation of window size.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is simulation outputs -> ML surrogate -> SHAP rankings. Most rankings (building shape, heights and distances of neighboring buildings, density, street width) are computed on features that vary independently in the parametric grid, so those findings are not circular. However, the headline status of WWR is a construction-level identification failure: WWR never appears as a Table 2 design variable; it is fixed per archetype in Table 3. Because building use also sets internal loads, lighting density, and occupancy assumptions, WWR is perfectly collinear with the use dimension. SHAP applied to the XGBoost surrogate cannot separate window size from building function, so the reported WWR importance is the archetype-effect relabeled. The 'commercial ratio' feature belongs to the same use dimension. The only self-citations (Talami and Jakubiec [20,75]) appear in the Discussion as corroboration, not as load-bearing derivation. The lack of external benchmark data is a validity limitation, not circularity. Overall, the core method is self-contained and reproducible, but one of the three headline findings reduces by construction to the building-use axis, warranting a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, forces, or mechanisms. The central claim rests on three classes of assumptions: simulation fidelity, representativeness of the parametric grid, and interpretability of SHAP as causal influence. The free parameters are the chosen simulation input ranges, SHAP classification thresholds, ML hyperparameters, and PV system assumptions; none are fitted to measured data, which is exactly why the transferability claim is underdetermined.

free parameters (4)
  • Simulation input ranges (9 morphology variables) = Site length 100-140 m; street width 6/12 m; typology rectangular/L; FAR 4.5/6.5; rotation -40/0/40 deg; coverage…
    Chosen by hand to reflect Tehran's master plan. Every SHAP ranking is conditional on these sampled levels; changing the ranges could change the rankings.
  • SHAP dominance thresholds = 50% for dominant, 20% for influential
    Defined in Section 3.3. The dominant/influential/negligible labels in Figures 5-7 depend on these arbitrary thresholds and on the per-category normalization of SHAP values.
  • XGBoost hyperparameters = learning rate 0.1, max depth 6, min child weight 1, gamma 0, subsample 1, colsample bytree 1, num round 100
    Tuned to the simulated dataset. Model choice and hyperparameters affect SHAP attributions, though the qualitative rankings are likely robust across tree ensembles.
  • PV system assumptions = 40% roof coverage, 18% efficiency, 32-degree tilt, south orientation
    Fixed by hand for PV generation outputs in Section 3.1. Different assumptions would change the PV-specific rankings.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Physics-based simulations using EnergyPlus/OpenStudio with UWG-modified weather yield accurate values for all six output metrics.
    All downstream ML and SHAP results inherit the fidelity of the simulation outputs; no measured data are provided for calibration or validation. Invoked throughout Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption The discretized parametric grid is representative of Tehran and of dry-arid urban fabrics generally.
    Section 3.1 and the Conclusion rely on this representativeness to support the generalization claim, despite the grid using regular layouts, two building typologies, fixed materials, and discrete street widths.
  • domain assumption SHAP values computed on the fitted XGBoost surrogate can be interpreted as the influence of urban morphology on performance.
    Section 3.3 and Section 4.2 interpret SHAP feature attributions as design-relevant sensitivity rankings, but SHAP explains the surrogate model, not the physical system, and collinear morphology features can spread attribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adopting Explainable-AI to investigate the impact of urban morphology design on energy and environmental performance in dry-arid climates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E6F6GKNP

@misc{pith2026241212183,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adopting Explainable-AI to investigate the impact of urban morphology design on energy and environmental performance in dry-arid climates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E6F6GKNP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12183}
}
read the original abstract

In rapidly urbanizing regions, designing climate-responsive urban forms is crucial for sustainable development, especially in dry arid-climates where urban morphology has a significant impact on energy consumption and environmental performance. This study advances urban morphology evaluation by combining Urban Building Energy Modeling (UBEM) with machine learning methods (ML) and Explainable AI techniques, specifically Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). Using Tehran's dense urban landscape as a case study, this research assesses and ranks the impact of 30 morphology parameters at the urban block level on key energy metrics (cooling, heating, and lighting demand) and environmental performance (sunlight exposure, photovoltaic generation, and Sky View Factor). Among seven ML algorithms evaluated, the XGBoost model was the most effective predictor, achieving high accuracy (R2: 0.92) and a training time of 3.64 seconds. Findings reveal that building shape, window-to-wall ratio, and commercial ratio are the most critical parameters affecting energy efficiency, while the heights and distances of neighboring buildings strongly influence cooling demand and solar access. By evaluating urban blocks with varied densities and configurations, this study offers generalizable insights applicable to other dry-arid regions. Moreover, the integration of UBEM and Explainable AI offers a scalable, data-driven framework for developing climate-responsive urban designs adaptable to high-density environments worldwide.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rethinking Sustainability Preprint submitted to Advances in Building Energy Research, November 2024 Towards a Regenerative Economy,

    M. B. Andreucci, A. Marvuglia, M. Baltov, and P. Hansen, “Rethinking Sustainability Preprint submitted to Advances in Building Energy Research, November 2024 Towards a Regenerative Economy,” Springer, vol. 15, pp. 263–280, 2021

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Robert and I

    A. Robert and I. Ballarini, “Supporting climate-neutral cities with urban energy modeling : a review of building retrofit scenarios , focused on decision-making , energy and environmental performance , and cost,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 98, no. July, p. 104832, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.104832

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Simulating the Impact of Urban Morphology on Energy Demand - A Case Study of Yuehai, China,

    C. Shang and G. Hou, “Simulating the Impact of Urban Morphology on Energy Demand - A Case Study of Yuehai, China,” 49th ISOCARP Congress, no. 2011, pp. 1–12, 2013

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Revealing urban morphology and outdoor comfort through genetic algorithm-driven urban block design in dry and hot regions of China,

    X. Xu, C. Yin, W. Wang, N. Xu, T. Hong, and Q. Li, “Revealing urban morphology and outdoor comfort through genetic algorithm-driven urban block design in dry and hot regions of China,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 11, no. 13, 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11133683

    work page doi:10.3390/su11133683 2019

  5. [5]

    Classification of urban morphology with deep learning: Application on urban vitality,

    W. Chen, A. N. Wu, and F. Biljecki, “Classification of urban morphology with deep learning: Application on urban vitality,” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, vol. 90, no. July, p. 101706, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2021.101706

    work page arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Fast estimation of airflow distribution in an urban model using generative adversarial networks with limited sensing data☆,

    C. Hu, H. Kikumoto, B. Zhang, and H. Jia, “Fast estimation of airflow distribution in an urban model using generative adversarial networks with limited sensing data☆,” Building and Environment, vol. 249, no. December 2023, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.111120

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    STRATEGIES FOR COOLING SINGAPORE- A CATALOGUE OF 80+ STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE URBAN HEAT ISLAND AND IMPROVE OUTDOOR THERMAL COMFORT EDITED,

    L. A. Ruefenacht and J. A. Acero, “STRATEGIES FOR COOLING SINGAPORE- A CATALOGUE OF 80+ STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE URBAN HEAT ISLAND AND IMPROVE OUTDOOR THERMAL COMFORT EDITED,” 2017. Preprint submitted to Advances in Building Energy Research, November 2024

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Urban form and building energy performance in Shanghai neighborhoods,

    S. J. Quan, J. Wu, Y. Wang, Z. Shi, T. Yang, and P. P. J. Yang, “Urban form and building energy performance in Shanghai neighborhoods,” Energy Procedia, vol. 88, pp. 126–132, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2016.06.035

    work page doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2016.06.035 2016

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Development of Multi-Scale City Building Energy Model for Urban Climate Resilience,

    A. Katal, “Development of Multi-Scale City Building Energy Model for Urban Climate Resilience,” no. November, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Urban building energy modeling: State of the art and future prospects,

    F. Johari, G. Peronato, P. Sadeghian, X. Zhao, and J. Widén, “Urban building energy modeling: State of the art and future prospects,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 128, no. April, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.109902

    2020

  3. [11]

    Balancing urban energy considering economic growth and environmental sustainability through integration of renewable energy,

    M. Zhang, D. Zhang, and T. Xie, “Balancing urban energy considering economic growth and environmental sustainability through integration of renewable energy,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 101, no. December 2023, p. 105178, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2024.105178

    2023

  4. [12]

    Building energy performance analysis at urban scale: A supporting tool for energy strategies and urban building energy rating identification,

    T. de Rubeis, L. Giacchetti, D. Paoletti, and D. Ambrosini, “Building energy performance analysis at urban scale: A supporting tool for energy strategies and urban building energy rating identification,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 74, no. July, p. 103220, 2021, doi: ...

    2021

  5. [13]

    From concept to application: A review of use cases in urban building energy modeling,

    Y. Q. Ang, Z. M. Berzolla, and C. F. Reinhart, “From concept to application: A review of use cases in urban building energy modeling,” Applied Energy, vol. 279, no. September, p. 115738, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115738

    2020

  6. [14]

    Information modelling for urban building energy simulation—A taxonomic review,

    A. Malhotra et al., “Information modelling for urban building energy simulation—A taxonomic review,” Building and Environment, vol. 208, no. October 2021, p. 108552, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108552. Preprint submitted to Advances in Building Energy Research, November 2024

    2021

  7. [15]

    Ten questions on urban building energy modeling,

    T. Hong, Y. Chen, X. Luo, N. Luo, and S. H. Lee, “Ten questions on urban building energy modeling,” Building and Environment, vol. 168, p. 106508, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106508

    2020

  8. [16]

    A data-driven approach for multi-scale GIS-based building energy modeling for analysis, planning and support decision making,

    U. Ali et al., “A data-driven approach for multi-scale GIS-based building energy modeling for analysis, planning and support decision making,” Applied Energy, vol. 279, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115834

    2020

  9. [17]

    Traditional Iranian courtyards as microclimate modifiers by considering orientation, dimensions, and proportions,

    F. Soflaei, M. Shokouhian, and S. M. Mofidi Shemirani, “Traditional Iranian courtyards as microclimate modifiers by considering orientation, dimensions, and proportions,” Frontiers of Architectural Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 225–238, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.foar.2016.02.002

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    A new approach of urban livability in Tehran: Thermal comfort as a primitive indicator. Case study, district 22,

    S. Alijani, A. Pourahmad, H. Hatami Nejad, K. Ziari, and S. Sodoudi, “A new approach of urban livability in Tehran: Thermal comfort as a primitive indicator. Case study, district 22,” Urban Climate, vol. 33, no. June, p. 100656, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100656

    2020

  11. [19]

    Urban form and building energy use: A systematic review of measures, mechanisms, and methodologies,

    S. J. Quan and C. Li, “Urban form and building energy use: A systematic review of measures, mechanisms, and methodologies,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 139, no. December 2020, p. 110662, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110662

    2020

  12. [20]

    Sensitivity of design parameters on energy, system and comfort performances for radiant cooled office buildings in the tropics,

    R. Talami and J. A. Jakubiec, “Sensitivity of design parameters on energy, system and comfort performances for radiant cooled office buildings in the tropics,” Building Simulation Conference Proceedings, vol. 3, pp. 1786–1793, 2019, doi: 10.26868/25222708.2019.210315

    2019

  13. [21]

    Zhang and Z

    M. Zhang and Z. Gao, “Effect of urban form on microclimate and energy loads: Case Preprint submitted to Advances in Building Energy Research, November 2024 study of generic residential district prototypes in Nanjing, China,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 70, no. March, ...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Parametric energy simulation in early design: High-rise residential buildings in urban contexts,

    H. Samuelson, S. Claussnitzer, A. Goyal, Y. Chen, and A. Romo-Castillo, “Parametric energy simulation in early design: High-rise residential buildings in urban contexts,” Building and Environment, vol. 101, pp. 19–31, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.02.018

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Urban morphology and building heating energy consumption: Evidence from Harbin, a severe cold region city,

    H. Leng, X. Chen, Y. Ma, N. H. Wong, and T. Ming, “Urban morphology and building heating energy consumption: Evidence from Harbin, a severe cold region city,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 224, p. 110143, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110143

    2020

  16. [24]

    Developing a three- dimensional urban surface model for spatiotemporal analysis of thermal comfort with respect to street direction,

    S. Hwan, D. Kun, Z. Gang, C. Yeon, S. Hyuck, and E. Sub, “Developing a three- dimensional urban surface model for spatiotemporal analysis of thermal comfort with respect to street direction,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 97, no. November 2022, p. 104721, 2023, doi: 10....

    2022

  17. [25]

    Simulation framework for early design guidance of urban streets to improve outdoor thermal comfort and building energy efficiency in summer,

    X. Zheng, L. Chen, and J. Yang, “Simulation framework for early design guidance of urban streets to improve outdoor thermal comfort and building energy efficiency in summer,” Building and Environment, vol. 228, no. November 2022, p. 109815, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109815

    2022

  18. [26]

    Prioritizing urban planning factors on community energy performance based on GIS-informed building energy modeling,

    H. Yu et al., “Prioritizing urban planning factors on community energy performance based on GIS-informed building energy modeling,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 249, p. 111191, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111191

    2021

  19. [27]

    The impact of urban form on building energy and cost efficiency in temperate-humid zones,

    S. D. Mangan, G. Koclar Oral, I. Erdemir Kocagil, and I. Sozen, “The impact of urban form on building energy and cost efficiency in temperate-humid zones,” Journal of Preprint submitted to Advances in Building Energy Research, November 2024 Building Engineering, vol. 33, p. 10...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Cities and energy: Urban morphology and residential heat-energy demand,

    P. Rode, C. Keim, G. Robazza, P. Viejo, and J. Schofield, “Cities and energy: Urban morphology and residential heat-energy demand,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 138–162, 2014, doi: 10.1068/b39065

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Balancing urban density, energy performance and environmental quality in the Mediterranean: A typological evaluation based on photovoltaic potential,

    J. Natanian and T. Auer, “Balancing urban density, energy performance and environmental quality in the Mediterranean: A typological evaluation based on photovoltaic potential,” Energy Procedia, vol. 152, no. November, pp. 1103–1108, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2018.09.133

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    An exploration of the relationship between density and building energy performance,

    S. J. Quan, A. Economou, T. Grasl, and P. P. J. Yang, “An exploration of the relationship between density and building energy performance,” Urban Design International, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 92–112, 2020, doi: 10.1057/s41289-020-00109-7

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    A parametric sensitivity analysis of the influence of urban form on domestic energy consumption for heating and cooling in a Mediterranean city,

    A. Vartholomaios, “A parametric sensitivity analysis of the influence of urban form on domestic energy consumption for heating and cooling in a Mediterranean city,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 28, pp. 135–145, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2016.09.006

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    An idealized study of city structure, urban climate, energy consumption, and air quality,

    A. Martilli, “An idealized study of city structure, urban climate, energy consumption, and air quality,” Urban Climate, vol. 10, no. P2, pp. 430–446, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2014.03.003

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    A parametric approach to optimizing urban form, energy balance and environmental quality: The case of Mediterranean districts,

    J. Natanian, O. Aleksandrowicz, and T. Auer, “A parametric approach to optimizing urban form, energy balance and environmental quality: The case of Mediterranean districts,” Applied Energy, vol. 254, no. November 2018, p. 113637, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113637. Prep...

    2018

  26. [34]

    Simplified evaluation metrics for generative energy-driven urban design: A morphological study of residential blocks in Tel Aviv,

    J. Natanian and T. Wortmann, “Simplified evaluation metrics for generative energy-driven urban design: A morphological study of residential blocks in Tel Aviv,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 240, p. 110916, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110916

    2021

  27. [35]

    Urban morphology indicator analyzes for urban energy modeling,

    H. C. Chen, Q. Han, and B. de Vries, “Urban morphology indicator analyzes for urban energy modeling,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 52, no. September 2019, p. 101863, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101863

    2019

  28. [36]

    Solar Performance Metrics in Urban Planning: A Review and Taxonomy,

    A. Czachura, J. Kanters, N. Gentile, and M. Wall, “Solar Performance Metrics in Urban Planning: A Review and Taxonomy,” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 393, 2022, doi: 10.3390/buildings12040393

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Co-model for urban density permutations and building form optimization with high-performance energy criteria,

    M. M. Saad and M. T. Araji, “Co-model for urban density permutations and building form optimization with high-performance energy criteria,” Animal Frontiers, vol. 43, no. August, p. 103109, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103109

    2021

  30. [38]

    Effects of neighbourhood morphological characteristics on outdoor daylight and insights for sustainable urban design,

    W. Pan and J. Du, “Effects of neighbourhood morphological characteristics on outdoor daylight and insights for sustainable urban design,” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 342–367, 2022, doi: 10.1080/13467581.2020.1870472

    2022

  31. [39]

    UBEM.io: A web-based framework to rapidly generate urban building energy models for carbon reduction technology pathways,

    Y. Q. Ang, Z. M. Berzolla, S. Letellier-Duchesne, V. Jusiega, C. Reinhart, and S. Cities, “UBEM.io: A web-based framework to rapidly generate urban building energy models for carbon reduction technology pathways,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 77, no. August 2021, p. 10...

    2021

  32. [40]

    Modeling of end-use energy consumption in the residential sector: A review of modeling techniques,

    L. G. Swan and V. I. Ugursal, “Modeling of end-use energy consumption in the residential sector: A review of modeling techniques,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Preprint submitted to Advances in Building Energy Research, November 2024 vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1819–1835,...

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    A review of bottom-up building stock models for energy consumption in the residential sector,

    M. Kavgic, A. Mavrogianni, D. Mumovic, A. Summerfield, Z. Stevanovic, and M. Djurovic-Petrovic, “A review of bottom-up building stock models for energy consumption in the residential sector,” Building and Environment, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 1683–1697, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.builden...

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    Urban building energy modeling (UBEM) tools: A state-of-the-art review of bottom-up physics-based approaches,

    M. Ferrando, F. Causone, T. Hong, and Y. Chen, “Urban building energy modeling (UBEM) tools: A state-of-the-art review of bottom-up physics-based approaches,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 62, p. 102408, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102408

    2020

  35. [43]

    Review of urban building energy modeling (UBEM) approaches, methods and tools using qualitative and quantitative analysis,

    U. Ali, M. H. Shamsi, C. Hoare, E. Mangina, and J. O’Donnell, “Review of urban building energy modeling (UBEM) approaches, methods and tools using qualitative and quantitative analysis,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 246, p. 111073, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111073

    2021

  36. [44]

    Review on stochastic modeling methods for building stock energy prediction,

    H. Lim and Z. J. Zhai, “Review on stochastic modeling methods for building stock energy prediction,” Building Simulation, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 607–624, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s12273- 017-0383-y

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    Multi-domain urban-scale energy modelling tools: A review,

    A. Sola, C. Corchero, J. Salom, and M. Sanmarti, “Multi-domain urban-scale energy modelling tools: A review,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 54, p. 101872, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101872

    2020

  38. [46]

    Fooling LIME and SHAP : Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methods,

    D. Slack, S. Hilgard, and E. Jia, “Fooling LIME and SHAP : Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methods,” pp. 180–186, 2020, doi: 10.1145/3375627.3375830

    2020

  39. [47]

    From local counterfactuals to global feature importance: efficient, robust, and model-agnostic explanations for brain connectivity networks,

    A. L. Alfeo, A. G. Zippo, V. Catrambone, M. G. C. A. Cimino, N. Toschi, and G. Preprint submitted to Advances in Building Energy Research, November 2024 Valenza, “From local counterfactuals to global feature importance: efficient, robust, and model-agnostic explanations for br...

    2024

  40. [48]

    Shap-enhanced counterfactual explanations for recommendations To cite this version : HAL Id : hal- 03529688 Shap-enhanced counterfactual explanations for recommendations,

    J. Zhong, E. Negre, J. Zhong, E. Negre, J. Zhong, and E. Negre, “Shap-enhanced counterfactual explanations for recommendations To cite this version : HAL Id : hal- 03529688 Shap-enhanced counterfactual explanations for recommendations,” 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Predicting Energy Consumption in Residential Buildings Using Advanced Machine Learning Algorithms,

    F. Dinmohammadi, Y. Han, and M. Shafiee, “Predicting Energy Consumption in Residential Buildings Using Advanced Machine Learning Algorithms,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 9, 2023, doi: 10.3390/en16093748

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    Understanding building energy efficiency with administrative and emerging urban big data by deep learning in Glasgow,

    M. Sun, C. Han, Q. Nie, J. Xu, F. Zhang, and Q. Zhao, “Understanding building energy efficiency with administrative and emerging urban big data by deep learning in Glasgow,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 273, p. 112331, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112331

    2022

  43. [51]

    Demystifying Thermal Comfort in Smart Buildings: An Interpretable Machine Learning Approach,

    W. Zhang, Y. Wen, K. J. Tseng, and G. Jin, “Demystifying Thermal Comfort in Smart Buildings: An Interpretable Machine Learning Approach,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 8021–8031, 2021, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2020.3042783

    2021

  44. [52]

    Interpretability analysis for thermal sensation machine learning models: An exploration based on the SHAP approach,

    Y. Yang, Y. Yuan, Z. Han, and G. Liu, “Interpretability analysis for thermal sensation machine learning models: An exploration based on the SHAP approach,” Indoor Air, vol. 32, no. 2, p. e12984, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12984

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    Exploring the relationship between 2D/3D landscape pattern and land surface temperature based on explainable eXtreme Gradient Boosting tree: A case study of Shanghai, China,

    S. Yu et al., “Exploring the relationship between 2D/3D landscape pattern and land surface temperature based on explainable eXtreme Gradient Boosting tree: A case study of Shanghai, China,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 725, p. 138229, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.10...

    2020

  46. [54]

    Machine learning simulation of land cover impact on surface urban heat island surrounding park areas,

    D. McCarty, J. Lee, and H. W. Kim, “Machine learning simulation of land cover impact on surface urban heat island surrounding park areas,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 13, no. 22, pp. 1–24, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su132212678

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    BIM-supported automatic energy performance analysis for green building design using explainable machine learning and multi-objective optimization,

    Y. Shen and Y. Pan, “BIM-supported automatic energy performance analysis for green building design using explainable machine learning and multi-objective optimization,” Applied Energy, vol. 333, p. 120575, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120575

    2023

  48. [56]

    M. Kim, D. Kim, and G. Kim, “Examining the Relationship between Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) and Land Surface Temperature (LST) Using Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) Models: A Case Study of Seoul, South Korea,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public...

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Explainable Machine Learning (XML) to predict external wind pressure of a low-rise building in urban-like settings,

    D. P. P. Meddage et al., “Explainable Machine Learning (XML) to predict external wind pressure of a low-rise building in urban-like settings,” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 226, no. December 2021, p. 105027, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jweia.2022.105027

    2021

  50. [58]

    Shams Amiri, M

    S. Shams Amiri, M. Mueller, and S. Hoque, “Investigating the Application of a Commercial and Residential Energy Consumption Prediction Model for Urban Planning Scenarios with Machine Learning and Shapley Additive Explanation Methods,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 287, p. 112965,...

    2023

  51. [59]

    Impact of Urban Park Design on Microclimate in Cold Regions using newly developped prediction method,

    J. Fu, Y. Wang, D. Zhou, and S. Cao, “Impact of Urban Park Design on Microclimate in Cold Regions using newly developped prediction method,” Sustainable Cities and Society, Preprint submitted to Advances in Building Energy Research, November 2024 vol. 80, no. July 2021, p. 103...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Optimal thermal characteristics of the courtyard in the hot and arid climate of Isfahan,

    R. H. Haseh, M. Khakzand, and M. Ojaghlou, “Optimal thermal characteristics of the courtyard in the hot and arid climate of Isfahan,” Buildings, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 1–28, 2018, doi: 10.3390/buildings8120166

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    Thermal Comfort Analysis of a Traditional Iranian Courtyard,

    S. Cho and N. Mohammadzadeh, “Thermal Comfort Analysis of a Traditional Iranian Courtyard,” 13th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association, pp. 2326–2333, 2013

    2013

  54. [62]

    Iran national regulations- Chapter 19, Enegy efficiancy, vol. 9311

  55. [63]

    Integration of open-source urbanopt and dragonfly energy modeling capabilities into practitioner workflows for district-scale planning and design,

    T. Charan et al., “Integration of open-source urbanopt and dragonfly energy modeling capabilities into practitioner workflows for district-scale planning and design,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 18, pp. 1–28, 2021, doi: 10.3390/en14185931

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    Sky view factor calculations and its application in urban heat island studies,

    M. Dirksen, R. J. Ronda, N. E. Theeuwes, and G. A. Pagani, “Sky view factor calculations and its application in urban heat island studies,” Urban Climate, vol. 30, no. May, p. 100498, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2019.100498

    2019

  57. [65]

    Predicting the consumed heating energy at residential buildings using a combination of categorical boosting (CatBoost) and Meta heuristics algorithms,

    H. Dasi, Z. Ying, and B. Yang, “Predicting the consumed heating energy at residential buildings using a combination of categorical boosting (CatBoost) and Meta heuristics algorithms,” Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 71, no. December 2022, p. 106584, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j....

    2022

  58. [66]

    XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System Tianqi,

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System Tianqi,” Il Friuli medico, vol. 19, no. 6, 2016, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785

    2016

  59. [67]

    Z. Ding, W. Chen, T. Hu, and X. Xu, “Evolutionary double attention-based long short- Preprint submitted to Advances in Building Energy Research, November 2024 term memory model for building energy prediction: Case study of a green building,” Applied Energy, vol. 288, no. Septe...

    2024

  60. [68]

    A data-driven approach to optimize urban scale energy retrofit decisions for residential buildings,

    U. Ali et al., “A data-driven approach to optimize urban scale energy retrofit decisions for residential buildings,” Applied Energy, vol. 267, no. November 2019, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114861

    2019

  61. [69]

    Exploring the influence of urban context on building energy retrofit performance: A hybrid simulation and data-driven approach,

    A. Nutkiewicz, B. Choi, and R. K. Jain, “Exploring the influence of urban context on building energy retrofit performance: A hybrid simulation and data-driven approach,” Advances in Applied Energy, vol. 3, no. May, p. 100038, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.adapen.2021.100038

    2021

  62. [70]

    Data-driven Urban Energy Simulation (DUE-S): A framework for integrating engineering simulation and machine learning methods in a multi-scale urban energy modeling workflow,

    A. Nutkiewicz, Z. Yang, and R. K. Jain, “Data-driven Urban Energy Simulation (DUE-S): A framework for integrating engineering simulation and machine learning methods in a multi-scale urban energy modeling workflow,” Applied Energy, vol. 225, no. January, pp. 1176–1189, 2018, d...

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning,

    F. Doshi-Velez and B. Kim, “Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning,” arXiv: Machine Learning, 2017

    2017

  64. [72]

    Interpretable machine learning for building energy management: A state-of-the-art review,

    Z. Chen, F. Xiao, F. Guo, and J. Yan, “Interpretable machine learning for building energy management: A state-of-the-art review,” Advances in Applied Energy, vol. 9, p. 100123, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adapen.2023.100123

    2023

  65. [73]

    Informing building retrofits at low computational costs: a multi- objective optimisation using machine learning surrogates of building performance simulation models,

    E. Markarian et al., “Informing building retrofits at low computational costs: a multi- objective optimisation using machine learning surrogates of building performance simulation models,” Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 2024, doi: Preprint submitted to Advances in...

    2024

  66. [74]

    Development of a Machine-Learning Framework for Overall Daylight and Visual Comfort Assessment in Early Design Stages,

    H. Nourkojouri, N. S. Shafavi, M. Tahsildoost, and Z. S. Zomorodian, “Development of a Machine-Learning Framework for Overall Daylight and Visual Comfort Assessment in Early Design Stages,” Journal of Daylighting, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 270–283, 2021, doi: 10.15627/JD.2021.21

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    Early-design sensitivity of radiant cooled office buildings in the tropics for building performance,

    R. Talami and J. A. Jakubiec, “Early-design sensitivity of radiant cooled office buildings in the tropics for building performance,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 223, p. 110177, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110177

    2020

  68. [76]

    Climate-informed decision- making for urban design: Assessing the impact of urban morphology on urban heat island,

    L. G. R. R. Santos, I. Nevat, G. Pignatta, and L. K. Norford, “Climate-informed decision- making for urban design: Assessing the impact of urban morphology on urban heat island,” Urban Climate, vol. 36, no. February, p. 100776, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100776

    2021

  69. [77]

    Cajot and N

    S. Cajot and N. Schüler, Urban Energy Systems for Low-Carbon Cities. 2018. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-811553-4.00001-9

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    Effect of urban built form and density on building energy performance in temperate climates,

    E. Ahmadian, B. Sodagar, C. Bingham, A. Elnokaly, and G. Mills, “Effect of urban built form and density on building energy performance in temperate climates,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 236, p. 110762, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110762

    2021

  71. [79]

    Urban geometry and solar availability on façades and ground of real urban forms : using London as a case study,

    C. Chatzipoulka, R. Compagnon, and M. Nikolopoulou, “Urban geometry and solar availability on façades and ground of real urban forms : using London as a case study,” Solar Energy, vol. 138, pp. 53–66, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2016.09.005

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.