Dig-limits optimization through mixed-integer linear programming in open-pit mines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a type of general layout problems, dig‐limits optimization focuses on generating the ore‐waste boundaries of a bench sector in an open‐pit mining operation. Typically, blast holes are dense; therefore, selective mining units (SMUs) are small, which is not compatible with loading equipment. Loader cannot select ore‐waste boundaries of SMUs because the arm of the excavator is generally longer than SMU sizes. Therefore, clusters of SMUs being compatible with loader movements need to be formed. In this paper, the dig‐limits optimization problem is shown to be NP‐hard and formulated to maximize profit to be obtained from a mining sector such that ore and waste clusters corresponding to mine excavator movements are considered and solved by mixed‐integer linear programming. To see the efficiency of the proposed approach, a case study is conducted on seven sectors of a bench in a gold mine. The results showed that the approach is practical and has potential to increase the value of operation. The resulting average economic value of seven sectors is $129,060. Additionally, optimal design of one bench solved by the model is compared to a manual design of a mining engineer and a deviation of 6.4% has been observed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".