MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402956418 · doi:10.18280/mmep.110903

Particle Swarm Optimization and Tree Models (M5P) as Cost Estimation Tool for Construction Project

2024· article· en· W4402956418 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raquim N. Zehawi, Rouwaida Hussein Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationEstimationTree (set theory)Computer scienceData miningEngineeringMachine learningMathematicsSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A useful tool for non-linear multivariable modelling is the Artificial Neural Network (ANN).Cost-effectiveness has been demonstrated for the use of ANN.Typically, the neural network is trained using the back propagation (BP) algorithm.Even while this technique is particularly successful at training a wide variety of networks, it suffers from slow convergence and easy trapping in local minima.Regression tree models (M5P) were used to suggest the adjustment of neural networks utilizing particle swarm optimization (PSO) as a technique for predicting building costs due to the potential of multiscale modelling and prediction using the incorporated relevant parameters affecting the building cost.The three models were assessed using a variety of metrics, including Mean Square Error (MSE), absolute error, and Pearson's correlation as an accuracy criterion.The MSE was also employed as a parameter to determine the ideal number of neurons for the hidden layer.The results indicate that the PSO model outperforms the other two techniques.The study also concluded that the PSO model can accurately predict the costs of construction projects when considering specified project activities and price indices.A combination of project features and an automated modelling mechanism has the potential to provide a reliable prediction result.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207