Comparison of machine learning methods for ground settlement prediction with different tunneling datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study integrates different machine learning (ML) methods and 5-fold cross-validation (CV) method to estimate the ground maximal surface settlement (MSS) induced by tunneling. We further investigate the applicability of artificial intelligent (AI) based prediction through a comparative study of two tunnelling datasets with different sizes and features. Four different ML approaches, including support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), back-propagation neural network (BPNN), and deep neural network (DNN), are utilized. Two techniques, i.e. particle swarm optimization (PSO) and grid search (GS) methods, are adopted for hyperparameter optimization. To assess the reliability and efficiency of the predictions, three performance evaluation indicators, including the mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and Pearson correlation coefficient (R), are calculated. Our results indicate that proposed models can accurately and efficiently predict the settlement, while the RF model outperforms the other three methods on both datasets. The difference in model performance on two datasets (Datasets A and B) reveals the importance of data quality and quantity. Sensitivity analysis indicates that Dataset A is more significantly affected by geological conditions, while geometric characteristics play a more dominant role on Dataset B.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".