MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001004579 · doi:10.1080/01605682.2019.1700179

Sublevel stope layout planning through a greedy heuristic approach based on dynamic programming

2020· article· en· W3001004579 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuksel Asli Sari, Mustafa Kumral

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Operational Research Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematical optimizationHeuristicsComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)HeuristicGreedy algorithmLimit (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Plan (archaeology)AlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sublevel stoping is a commonly used underground mining method in which the profit can be increased by optimizing the layout plan. The complexity of the sublevel stope layout problem is demonstrated by showing it is a special case of the independent set problem, which is NP-hard. A novel approach based on dynamic programming is proposed to solve the sublevel stope layout problem. This approach identifies the recurring subproblems and memoizes their results. Memoizing subproblems reduces the solution time by shifting the computational burden of recalculation to the computer memory. To solve larger problem instances, a greedy heuristic is introduced to further decrease the solution time and limit the memory usage. For smaller problem sizes, the heuristic can be lifted and the approach can be used as an exact method. A large case study is presented to demonstrate the performance of the approach. The results show that that the stope layout plan is generated fast and it captures the valuable regions of the orebody well. A second, smaller case study is presented to benchmark the introduced exact and heuristic approaches. The exact approach outperforms the heuristic approach only by 1% while the solution time is reduced by more than 99%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Operational Research SocietySame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207