Scoring rules and abnormally low bids criteria in construction tenders: A taxonomic review

In the global construction context, the Best Value or Most Economically Advantageous Tender is becoming a widespread approach for contractor selection, as an alternative to other traditional awarding criteria such as the Lowest Price. In these multi-attribute tenders, the owner or auctioneer solicits proposals containing both a price bid and additional technical features. Once the proposals are received, each bidder's price bid is given an economic score according to a scoring rule, generally called an Economic Scoring Formula (ESF) and a technical score according to pre-specified criteria. Eventually, the contract is awarded to the bidder with the highest weighted overall score (economic + technical). However, Economic Scoring Formula selection by auctioneers is invariably and paradoxically a highly intuitive process in practice, involving few theoretical or empirical considerations, despite having being considered traditionally and mistakenly as objective, due to its mathematical nature. This paper provides a taxonomic classification of a wide variety of ESF and Abnormally Low Bid Criteria (ALBC) gathered in several countries with different tendering approaches. Practical implications concern the optimal design of price scoring rules in construction contract tenders, as well as future analyses of the effects of ESF and ALBC on competitive bidding behaviour.

Confidence measurement in the light of signal detection theory

We compare three alternative methods for eliciting retrospective confidence in the context of a simple perceptual task: the Simple Confidence Rating (a direct report on a numerical scale), the Quadratic Scoring Rule (a post-wagering procedure), and the Matching Probability (MP; a generalization of the no-loss gambling method). We systematically compare the results obtained with these three rules to the theoretical confidence levels that can be inferred from performance in the perceptual task using Signal Detection Theory (SDT). We find that the MP provides better results in that respect. We conclude that MP is particularly well suited for studies of confidence that use SDT as a theoretical framework.

In search of good probability assessors: An experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments

In this paper, we use an experimental design to compare the performance of elicitation rules for subjective beliefs. Contrary to previous works in which elicited beliefs are compared to an objective benchmark, we consider a purely subjective belief framework (confidence in one’s own performance in a cognitive task and a perceptual task). The performance of different elicitation rules is assessed according to the accuracy of stated beliefs in predicting success. We measure this accuracy using two main factors: calibration and discrimination. For each of them, we propose two statistical indexes and we compare the rules’ performances for each measurement. The matching probability method provides more accurate beliefs in terms of discrimination, while the quadratic scoring rule reduces overconfidence and the free rule, a simple rule with no incentives, which succeeds in eliciting accurate beliefs. Nevertheless, the matching probability appears to be the best mechanism for eliciting beliefs due to its performances in terms of calibration and discrimination, but also its ability to elicit consistent beliefs across measures and across tasks, as well as its empirical and theoretical properties.

A Reliable Basis for Approximate Association Rules

For most of the work done in developing association rule mining, the primary focus has been on the efficiency of the approach and to a lesser extent the quality of the derived rules has been emphasized. Often for a dataset, a huge number of rules can be derived, but many of them can be redundant to other rules and thus are useless in practice. The extremely large number of rules makes it difficult for the end users to comprehend and therefore effectively use the discovered rules and thus significantly reduces the effectiveness of rule mining algorithms. If the extracted knowledge can’t be effectively used in solving real world problems, the effort of extracting the knowledge is worth little. This is a serious problem but not yet solved satisfactorily. In this paper, we propose a concise representation called Reliable Approximate basis for representing non-redundant approximate association rules. We prove that the redundancy elimination based on the proposed basis does not reduce the belief to the extracted rules. We also prove that all approximate association rules can be deduced from the Reliable Approximate basis. Therefore the basis is a lossless representation of approximate association rules.

Interestingness Measures for Multi-Level Association Rules

Association rule mining is one technique that is widely used when querying databases, especially those that are transactional, in order to obtain useful associations or correlations among sets of items. Much work has been done focusing on efficiency, effectiveness and redundancy. There has also been a focusing on the quality of rules from single level datasets with many interestingness measures proposed. However, with multi-level datasets now being common there is a lack of interestingness measures developed for multi-level and cross-level rules. Single level measures do not take into account the hierarchy found in a multi-level dataset. This leaves the Support-Confidence approach,which does not consider the hierarchy anyway and has other drawbacks, as one of the few measures available. In this paper we propose two approaches which measure multi-level association rules to help evaluate their interestingness. These measures of diversity and peculiarity can be used to help identify those rules from multi-level datasets that are potentially useful.