Doǧan, S Z; Arditi, D and Murat Günaydin, H (2006) Determining attribute weights in a CBR model for early cost prediction of structural systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(10), pp. 1092-1098. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper compares the performance of three optimization techniques, namely feature counting, gradient descent, and genetic algorithms (GA) in generating attribute weights that were used in a spreadsheet-based case based reasoning (CBR) prediction model. The generation of the attribute weights by using the three optimization techniques and the development of the procedure used in the CBR model are described in this paper in detail. The model was tested by using data pertaining to the early design parameters and unit cost of the structural system of 29 residential building projects. The results indicated that GA-augmented CBR performed better than CBR used in association with the other two optimization techniques. The study is of benefit primarily to researchers as it compares the impact attribute weights generated by three different optimization techniques on the performance of a CBR prediction tool.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction costs; cost estimates; decision making; decision support systems; optimization models; predictions; spreadsheets |
| Index terms: | cost estimate, optimization technique, spreadsheet, residential building, cost prediction, design parameter, construction cost, decision-making, unit cost, genetic algorithm, case-based reasoning, decision support, prediction model |
| Subjects: | design constraints, decision analysis, cognitive psychology, algorithms, data science, prediction and forecasting, financial and cost management, construction type |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Cost Management, Construction Technology, Risk 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