4.7 Article

On the feature engineering of building energy data mining

Journal

SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY
Volume 39, Issue -, Pages 508-518

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.02.016

Keywords

Building energy; Feature engineering; Exploratory data analysis; Principal component analysis; Random forest

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation Singapore under Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Understanding the underlying dynamics of building energy consumption is the very first step towards energy saving in building sector; as a powerful tool for knowledge discovery, data mining is being applied to this domain more and more frequently. However, most of previous researchers focus on model development during the pipeline of data mining, with feature engineering simply being overlooked. To fill this gap, three different feature engineering approaches, namely exploratory data analysis (EDA) as a feature visualization method, random forest (RF) as a feature selection method and principal component analysis (PCA) as a feature extraction method, are investigated in the paper. These feature engineering methods are tested with a building energy consumption dataset with 124 features, which describe the building physics, weather condition, and occupant behavior. The 124 features are analyzed and ranked in this paper. It is found that although feature importance depends on specific machine learning model, yet certain features will always dominate the feature space. The outcome of this study favors the usage of effective yet computationally cheap feature engineering methods such as EDA; for other building energy data mining problems, the method proposed in this study still holds important implications since it provides a starting point where efficient feature engineering and machine learning models could be further developed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available