An integrated game-theoretic and reinforcement learning modeling for multi-stage construction and infrastructure bidding

References

• Abotaleb, I.S. and El-adaway, I.H., 2017. Construction bidding markup estimation using a multistage decision theory approach. Journal of construction engineering and management, 143 (1), 04016079.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed, M.O. (2015). Construction bidding and the winner’s curse. Master’s Thesis. Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA. http://sun.library.msstate.edu/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-03252015-173319/.
   Google Scholar
• Ahmed, M.O., El-adaway, I.H., and Coatney, K.T., 2022. Solving the negative earnings dilemma of multi-stage bidding in public construction and infrastructure projects: a game theory based approach. Journal of management in engineering, 38 (2), e0000997.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed, M.O., et al., 2015. Multi-stage bidding for construction contracts: a game theory approach. In Proc., 5th International/11th Construction Specialty Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia.
   Google Scholar
• Ahmed, M.O., et al., 2016. Construction bidding and the winner’s curse: game theory approach. Journal of construction engineering and management, 142 (2), 04015076.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed, M.O., et al., 2021. Evaluating deterioration of tunnels using computational machine learning algorithms. Journal of construction engineering and management, 147 (10), 04021125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arora, S., Hazan, E., and Kale, S., 2012. The multiplicative weights update method: a meta-algorithm and applications. Theory of computing, 8 (1), 121–164.
   Google Scholar
• Assaad, R., et al., 2021. Comparing the impact of learning in bidding decision-making processes using algorithmic game theory. Journal of management in engineering, 37 (1), 04020099.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assaad, R. and El-adaway, I.H., 2020. Enhancing the knowledge of construction business failure: a social network analysis approach. Journal of construction engineering and management, 146 (6), 04020052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Awwad, R.E., 2010. Neutral and risk-sensitive models for competitive bidding methods based on average and order statistics. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Michigan, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Ballesteros-Pérez, P. and Skitmore, M., 2017. On the distribution of bids for construction contract auctions. Construction management and economics, 35 (3), 106–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballesteros-Pérez, P., et al., 2015. Scoring rules and abnormally low bids criteria in construction tenders: a taxonomic review. Construction management and economics, 33 (4), 259–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bathellier, B., et al., 2013. A multiplicative reinforcement learning model capturing learning dynamics and interindividual variability in mice. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 110 (49), 19950–19955.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chao, L.C. and Liaw, S.J., 2019. Fuzzy logic model for determining minimum overheads-cum-markup rate. J ournal of construction engineering and management, 145 (4), 04019008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chou, J.S., Pham, A.D., and Wang, H., 2013. Bidding strategy to support decision-making by integrating fuzzy AHP and regression-based simulation. Automation in construction. 35, 517–527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christodoulou, S., 2004. Optimum bid markup calculation using neurofuzzy systems and multidimensional risk analysis algorithm. Journal of computing in civil engineering, 18 (4), 322–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davatgaran, V., Saniei, M., and Mortazavi, S.S., 2018. Optimal bidding strategy for an energy hub in energy market. Energy, 148, 482–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong-hong, C. and Xi-yan, Z., 2009. Application of game theory on bidding price decision. 16th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Beijing, pp. 58–61,
   Google Scholar
• Drew, D.S., and Skitmore, M., 2006. Testing Vickery’s revenue equivalence theory in construction auctions. Journal of construction engineering and management, 132 (4), 425–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dulleck, U., Gong, J., and Li, J., 2015. Contracting for infrastructure projects as credence goods. Journal of public economic theory, 17 (3), 328–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer, D., and Kagel, J.H., 1996. Bidding in common value auctions: how the commercial construction industry corrects for the winner’s curse. Management science, 42 (10), 1463–1474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer, D., Kagel, J.H., and Levin, D., 1989. A comparison of naive and experienced bidders in common value offer auctions: a laboratory analysis. The economic journal, 99 (394), 108–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eissa, R., Eid, M.S., and Elbeltagi, E., 2021. Current applications of game theory in construction engineering and management research: a social network analysis approach. Journal of construction engineering and management, 147 (7), 04021066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erev, I. and Roth, A.E., 1998. Predicting how people play games: reinforcement learning in experimental games with unique, mixed strategy equilibria. American economic review, 88 (4), 848–881.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, L., 1956. A competitive-bidding strategy. Operations research, 4 (1), 104–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gates, M., 1967. Bidding strategy and probabilities. Journal of the construction division, the american society of civil engineers, 93 (CO1), 74–107.
   Google Scholar
• Goeree, J.K., and Offerman, T., 2002. Efficiency in auctions with private and common values: experimental study. The American economic review, 92 (3), 625–643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorgun, M.K., Kutlu, M., and Tas, B.K.O. (2020). Predicting the number of bidders in public procurement. 2020 5th international conference on computer science and engineering, IEEE, New York, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Hedges, J., 2018. Backward induction for repeated games. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07074.
   Google Scholar
• Hong, H. and Shum, M., 2002. Increasing competition and the winner’s curse: evidence from procurement. Review of economic studies, 69 (4), 871–898.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter, J. D. 2007. Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90–95.
   Google Scholar
• Ioannou, P.G. and Awwad, R.E., 2010. Below-average bidding method. Journal of construction engineering and management, 136 (9), 936–946.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kardes, I., et al., 2013. Managing. International business review, 22 (6), 905–917.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, S. and van Beers, A., 2020. Doing business in a ‘sunburnt’country–international contractors on Australian projects. Construction law international, 15 (2), 13.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, H.J. and Reinschmidt, K.F., 2006. A dynamic competition model for construction contractors. Construction management and economics, 24 (9), 955–965.
   Google Scholar
• Laux, M., 2019. Multiplicative Weights Update (MWU). https://analytixon.com/2019/06/07/if-you-did-not-already-know-752/ (Accessed July 5, 2021).
   Google Scholar
• Lehmann, E.L. and Romano, J.P., 2008. Testing statistical hypotheses, 3rd ed. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Leśniak, A. and Plebankiewicz, E., 2015. Modeling the decision-making process concerning participation in construction bidding. Journal of management in engineering, 31 (2), 04014032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lew, Y.L., et al., 2018. Structural equation modelling for subcontracting practice: Malaysia chapter. Engineering, construction and architectural management, 25 (7), 835–860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lew, Y.L., et al., 2020. Change management in Malaysia infrastructure project: role of subcontractors. International journal of industrial management, 8 (1), 43–51.
   Google Scholar
• Li, H., 1996. Neural network models for intelligent support of mark-up estimation. Engineering, construction and architectural management, 3 (1/2), 69–68.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, J., et al., 2018. Experimental investigation of the impact of risk preference on construction bid markups. Journal of management in engineering, 34 (3), 04018003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, J., et al., 2017. Evolutionary game of investors’ opportunistic behaviour during the operational period in PPP projects. Construction management and economics, 35 (3), 137–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, M. and Ling, Y.Y., 2005. Modeling a contractor’s markup estimation. Journal of construction engineering management. 131 (4), 391–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Love, P.E., et al., 2021. Shared leadership, value and risks in large scale transport projects: re-calibrating procurement policy for post COVID-19. Research in transportation economics, 90, 100999.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowe, D.J. and Parvar, J., 2004. A logistic regression approach to modelling the contractor’s decision to bid. Construction management and economics, 22 (6), 643–653.
   Google Scholar
• Marzouk, M. and Moselhi, O., 2003. A decision support tool for construction bidding. Construction innovation, 3, 111–124.
   Google Scholar
• McKinney, W., 2010. Data structures for statistical computing in Python. In Proceedings of 9th Python in Science Conf., 51–56. Austin, T X: Enthought.
   Google Scholar
• Meurer, A., Smith, C. P., Paprocki, M., et al., 2017. SymPy: symbolic computing in Python. PeerJ Computer Science, 3, e103.
   Google Scholar
• Milgrom, P., 1989. Auctions and bidding: a primer. Journal of economic perspectives, 3 (3), 3–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millman, K. J., and Aivazis, M. 2011. Python for scientists and engineers. Computing in science & engineering, 13 (2), 9–12.
   Google Scholar
• Myerson, R.B., 1991. Game theory: analysis of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ng, S.T. and Luu, C.D.T., 2008. Modeling subcontractor registration decisions through case-based reasoning approach. Automation in construction, 17 (7), 873–881.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nichols, J., 2018. Reverse auction bidding: studying player behavior. Journal of construction engineering and management, 144 (1), 04017095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliphant, T.E., 2006. A guide to NumPy (Vol. 1, p. 85). USA: Trelgol Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Oliphant, T.E., 2007. Python for scientific computing. Computing in science & engineering, 9 (3), 10–20.
   Google Scholar
• Oo, B.L., Drew, D.S., and Runeson, G., 2010. Competitor analysis in construction bidding. Construction management and economics, 28 (12), 1321–1329.
   Google Scholar
• Pentapalli, M., 2008. A comparative study of Roth-Erev and modified Roth-Erev reinforcement learning algorithms for uniform-price double auctions. Master of Science Thesis, Department of Computer Science: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Rastegar, H., et al., 2021. Stochastic programming model for bidding price decision in construction projects. Journal of construction engineering and management, 147 (4), 04021025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seydel, J., 2003. Evaluating and comparing bidding optimization effectiveness. Journal of construction engineering and management, 129 (3), 285–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutton, R.S. and Barto, A.G., 2018. Reinforcement learning: an introduction, Second edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tan, W., and Suranga, H., 2008. The winner’s curse in the Sri Lankan construction industry. International journal of construction management, 8 (1), 29–35.
   Google Scholar
• US General Services Administration, 2016. Bidding on federal construction projects. https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/real-estate-services/for-businesses-seeking-opportunities/bidding-on-federal-construction-projects [Accessed 02 August 2021].
   Google Scholar
• Vazirani and Rao., 2012. The multiplicative weights update method. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/∼satishr/cs270/sp11/rough-notes/umesh-experts-lecture.pdf [Accessed 5 July 2021].
   Google Scholar
• Verma, P., Diamantidis, S., 2021. What is reinforcement learning? https://www.synopsys.com/ai/what-is-reinforcement-learning.html [Accessed 04 August 2021].
   Google Scholar
• Walpole, B., 2021. Decades of ASCE advocacy work culminate in $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2021/11/06/decades-of-asce-advocacy-work-culminate-in-12-trillion-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act [Accessed 15 November 2021].
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X., Ye, K., and Arditi, D., 2021. Embodied cost of collusive bidding: evidence from China’s construction industry. Journal of construction engineering and management, 147 (6), 04021037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wanous, M., Boussabaine, H.A., and Lewis, J., 2003. A neural network bid/no bid model: the case for contractors in Syria. Construction management and economics, 21 (7), 737–744.
   Google Scholar
• Yiu, C.Y. and Tam, C.S., 2006. Rational under‐pricing in bidding strategy: a real options model. Construction management and economics, 24 (5), 475–484.
   Google Scholar