Stochastic mine design optimisation based on simulated annealing: pit limits, production schedules, multiple orebody scenarios and sensitivity analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over recent years, new methods have been developed to integrate uncertainty into the optimisation of life-of-mine production planning. One of these methods is based on scheduling with a simulated annealing (SA) algorithm and equally probable realisations of a given mineral deposit. The latter realisations are used to generate production schedules that minimise the possibility of deviating from production targets, and result in schedules with a substantial improvement in the net present value (NPV), shown to be in the order of 25% when compared to conventional scheduling within the conventionally optimal pit limits. To facilitate the utilisation of this method, a sensitivity analysis is presented in this study. The study documents the case of a copper deposit where 10 simulated realisations are sufficient to provide stable life-of-mine optimisation results. In addition, the study shows that the selected true optimal pit limits are larger than those derived through conventional optimisation. Stochastically optimised pit limits are found to be ∼17% larger, in terms of total tonnage, than the conventional (deterministic) optimal pit limits. The difference adds one year of mining and ∼10% of additional NPV when compared to the NPV of conventional optimal pit limits and a production schedule generated stochastically with the same simulated annealing algorithm.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".