Selecting Appropriate Risk Response Strategies Considering Utility Function and Budget Constraints: A Case Study of a Construction Company in Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Successful implementation of construction projects worldwide calls for a set of effective risk management plans in which uncertainties associated with risks and effective response strategies are addressed meticulously. Thus, this study aims to provide an optimization approach with which risk response strategies that maximize the utility function are selected. This selection is by opting for the most appropriate strategies with the highest impact on the project regarding the weight of each risk and budget constraints. Moreover, the risk assessment and response strategy of a construction project in Iran as a case study, based on the global standard of the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK) and related literature, is evaluated. To handle the complexity of the proposed model, different state of the art metaheuristic algorithms including the ant lion optimizer (ALO), dragonfly algorithm (DA), grasshopper optimization algorithm (GOA), Harris hawks optimization (HHO), moth-flame optimization algorithm (MFO), multi-verse optimizer (MVO), sine cosine algorithm (SCA), salp swarm algorithm (SSA), whale optimization algorithm (WOA), and grey wolf optimizer (GWO). These algorithms are validated by the exact solver from CPLEX software and compare with each other. One finding from this comparison is the high performance of MFO and HHO algorithms. Based on some sensitivity analyses, an extensive discussion is provided to suggest managerial insights for real-world construction projects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".