A stochastic optimization formulation for the transition from open pit to underground mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As open pit mining of a mineral deposit deepens, the cost of extraction may increase up to a threshold where transitioning to mining through underground methods is more profitable. This paper provides an approach to determine an optimal depth at which a mine should transition from open pit to underground mining, based on managing technical risk. The value of a set of candidate transition depths is calculated by optimizing the production schedules for each depth’s unique open pit and underground operations which provide yearly discounted cash flow projections. By considering the sum of the open pit and underground mining portion’s value, the most profitable candidate transition depth is identified. The optimization model presented is based on a stochastic integer program that integrates geological uncertainty and manages technical risk. The proposed approach is tested on a gold deposit. Results show the benefits of managing geological uncertainty in long-term strategic decision-making frameworks. Additionally, the stochastic result produces a 9% net present value increase over a similar deterministic formulation. The risk-managing stochastic framework also produces operational schedules that reduce a mining project`s susceptibility to geological risk. This work aims to approve on previous attempts to solve this problem by jointly considering geological uncertainty and describing the optimal transition depth effectively in 3-dimensions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".