Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userLimitations of machine learning for building energy prediction
92
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Clayton Miller
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Machine learning for building energy prediction has exploded in popularity in recent years, yet understanding its limitations and potential for improvement are lacking. The ASHRAE Great Energy Predictor III (GEPIII) Kaggle competition was the largest building energy meter machine learning competition ever held with 4,370 participants who submitted 39,403 predictions. The test data set included two years of hourly electricity, hot water, chilled water, and steam 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 competitions 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 types of error are classified according to the amount of time errors occur in each instance, abrupt versus gradual behavior, the magnitude of error, and whether the error existed on single buildings or several buildings at once from a single location. The results show machine learning models have errors within a range of acceptability on 79.1% of the test data. Lower magnitude model errors occur in 16.1% of the test data. These discrepancies can likely be addressed through additional training data sources or innovations in machine learning. Higher magnitude errors occur in 4.8% of the test data and are unlikely to be accurately predicted regardless of innovation. There is a diversity of error behavior depending on the energy meter type (electricity prediction models have unacceptable error in under 10% of test data, while hot water is over 60%) and building use type (public service less than 14%, while technology/science is just over 46%).
rate research
Read More
Machine learning algorithms designed to characterize, monitor, and intervene on human health (ML4H) are expected to perform safely and reliably when operating at scale, potentially outside strict human supervision. This requirement warrants a stricter attention to issues of reproducibility than other fields of machine learning. In this work, we conduct a systematic evaluation of over 100 recently published ML4H research papers along several dimensions related to reproducibility. We find that the field of ML4H compares poorly to more established machine learning fields, particularly concerning data and code accessibility. Finally, drawing from success in other fields of science, we propose recommendations to data providers, academic publishers, and the ML4H research community in order to promote reproducible research moving forward.
The use of machine learning to guide clinical decision making has the potential to worsen existing health disparities. Several recent works frame the problem as that of algorithmic fairness, a framework that has attracted considerable attention and criticism. However, the appropriateness of this framework is unclear due to both ethical as well as technical considerations, the latter of which include trade-offs between measures of fairness and model performance that are not well-understood for predictive models of clinical outcomes. To inform the ongoing debate, we conduct an empirical study to characterize the impact of penalizing group fairness violations on an array of measures of model performance and group fairness. We repeat the analyses across multiple observational healthcare databases, clinical outcomes, and sensitive attributes. We find that procedures that penalize differences between the distributions of predictions across groups induce nearly-universal degradation of multiple performance metrics within groups. On examining the secondary impact of these procedures, we observe heterogeneity of the effect of these procedures on measures of fairness in calibration and ranking across experimental conditions. Beyond the reported trade-offs, we emphasize that analyses of algorithmic fairness in healthcare lack the contextual grounding and causal awareness necessary to reason about the mechanisms that lead to health disparities, as well as about the potential of algorithmic fairness methods to counteract those mechanisms. In light of these limitations, we encourage researchers building predictive models for clinical use to step outside the algorithmic fairness frame and engage critically with the broader sociotechnical context surrounding the use of machine learning in healthcare.
In spam and malware detection, attackers exploit randomization to obfuscate malicious data and increase their chances of evading detection at test time; e.g., malware code is typically obfuscated using random strings or byte sequences to hide known exploits. Interestingly, randomization has also been proposed to improve security of learning algorithms against evasion attacks, as it results in hiding information about the classifier to the attacker. Recent work has proposed game-theoretical formulations to learn secure classifiers, by simulating different evasion attacks and modifying the classification function accordingly. However, both the classification function and the simulated data manipulations have been modeled in a deterministic manner, without accounting for any form of randomization. In this work, we overcome this limitation by proposing a randomized prediction game, namely, a non-cooperative game-theoretic formulation in which the classifier and the attacker make randomized strategy selections according to some probability distribution defined over the respective strategy set. We show that our approach allows one to improve the trade-off between attack detection and false alarms with respect to state-of-the-art secure classifiers, even against attacks that are different from those hypothesized during design, on application examples including handwritten digit recognition, spam and malware detection.
Medication errors continue to be the leading cause of avoidable patient harm in hospitals. This paper sets out a framework to assure medication safety that combines machine learning and safety engineering methods. It uses safety analysis to proactively identify potential causes of medication error, based on expert opinion. As healthcare is now data rich, it is possible to augment safety analysis with machine learning to discover actual causes of medication error from the data, and to identify where they deviate from what was predicted in the safety analysis. Combining these two views has the potential to enable the risk of medication errors to be managed proactively and dynamically. We apply the framework to a case study involving thoracic surgery, e.g. oesophagectomy, where errors in giving beta-blockers can be critical to control atrial fibrillation. This case study combines a HAZOP-based safety analysis method known as SHARD with Bayesian network structure learning and process mining to produce the analysis results, showing the potential of the framework for ensuring patient safety, and for transforming the way that safety is managed in complex healthcare environments.
Uncertainty quantification in Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based predictions of material properties is of immense importance for the success and reliability of AI applications in material science. While confidence intervals are commonly reported for machine learning (ML) models, prediction intervals, i.e., the evaluation of the uncertainty on each prediction, are seldomly available. In this work we compare 3 different approaches to obtain such individual uncertainty, testing them on 12 ML-physical properties. Specifically, we investigated using the Quantile loss function, machine learning the prediction intervals directly and using Gaussian Processes. We identify each approachs advantages and disadvantages and end up slightly favoring the modeling of the individual uncertainties directly, as it is the easiest to fit and, in most cases, minimizes over-and under-estimation of the predicted errors. All data for training and testing were taken from the publicly available JARVIS-DFT database, and the codes developed for computing the prediction intervals are available through JARVIS-Tools.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
