Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Limitations of machine learning for building energy prediction: ASHRAE Great Energy Predictor III Kaggle competition error analysis

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2106.13475 v3 pith:QODCUDQZ submitted 2021-06-25 cs.LG cs.CY

classification cs.LGcs.CY
keywords buildingdataenergyerrorslearningmachinecompetitiontest
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Research is needed to explore the limitations and potential for improvement of machine learning for building energy prediction. With this aim, the ASHRAE Great Energy Predictor III (GEPIII) Kaggle competition was launched in 2019. This effort was the largest building energy meter machine learning competition of its kind, with 4,370 participants who submitted 39,403 predictions. The test data set included two years of hourly whole building readings from 2,380 meters in 1,448 buildings at 16 locations. This paper analyzes the various sources and types of residual model error from an aggregation of the competition's top 50 solutions. This analysis reveals the limitations for machine learning using the standard model inputs of historical meter, weather, and basic building metadata. The errors are classified according to timeframe, behavior, magnitude, and incidence in single buildings or across a campus. The results show machine learning models have errors within a range of acceptability (RMSLE_scaled =< 0.1) on 79.1% of the test data. Lower magnitude (in-range) model errors (0.1 < RMSLE_scaled =< 0.3) occur in 16.1% of the test data. These errors could be remedied using innovative training data from onsite and web-based sources. Higher magnitude (out-of-range) errors (RMSLE_scaled > 0.3) occur in 4.8% of the test data and are unlikely to be accurately predicted.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Data Model Design for Explainable Machine Learning-based Electricity Applications

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A three-part taxonomy (domain, contextual, behavioral) guides feature engineering that improves hour-ahead household electricity forecast accuracy by roughly 4 percentage points in MPE on three public datasets.

Pith tools