Predicting Hard Rock Pillar Stability Using GBDT, XGBoost, and LightGBM Algorithms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting pillar stability is a vital task in hard rock mines as pillar instability can cause large-scale collapse hazards. However, it is challenging because the pillar stability is affected by many factors. With the accumulation of pillar stability cases, machine learning (ML) has shown great potential to predict pillar stability. This study aims to predict hard rock pillar stability using gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM) algorithms. First, 236 cases with five indicators were collected from seven hard rock mines. Afterwards, the hyperparameters of each model were tuned using a five-fold cross validation (CV) approach. Based on the optimal hyperparameters configuration, prediction models were constructed using training set (70% of the data). Finally, the test set (30% of the data) was adopted to evaluate the performance of each model. The precision, recall, and F1 indexes were utilized to analyze prediction results of each level, and the accuracy and their macro average values were used to assess the overall prediction performance. Based on the sensitivity analysis of indicators, the relative importance of each indicator was obtained. In addition, the safety factor approach and other ML algorithms were adopted as comparisons. The results showed that GBDT, XGBoost, and LightGBM algorithms achieved a better comprehensive performance, and their prediction accuracies were 0.8310, 0.8310, and 0.8169, respectively. The average pillar stress and ratio of pillar width to pillar height had the most important influences on prediction results. The proposed methodology can provide a reliable reference for pillar design and stability risk management.
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.
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 it