Performance of Statistical and Intelligent Methods in Estimating Rock Compressive Strength
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research was conducted to forecast the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rocks via the random forest, artificial neural network, Gaussian process regression, support vector machine, K-nearest neighbor, adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system, simple regression, and multiple linear regression approaches. For this purpose, geo-mechanical and petrographic characteristics of sedimentary rocks in southern Iran were measured. The effect of petrography on geo-mechanical characteristics was assessed. The carbonate and sandstone samples were classified as mudstone to grainstone and calc-litharenite, respectively. Due to the shallow depth of the studied mines and the low amount of quartz minerals in the samples, the rock bursting phenomenon does not occur in these mines. To develop UCS predictor models, porosity, point load index, water absorption, P-wave velocity, and density were considered as inputs. Using variance accounted for, mean absolute percentage error, root-mean-square-error, determination coefficient (R2), and performance index (PI), the efficiency of the methods was evaluated. Analysis of model criteria using multiple linear regression allowed for the development of a user-friendly equation, which proved to have adequate accuracy. All intelligent methods (with R2 > 90%) had excellent accuracy for estimating UCS. The percentage difference of the average of all six intelligent methods with the measured value was equal to +0.28%. By comparing the methods, the accuracy of the support vector machine with radial basis function in predicting UCS was (R2 = 0.99 and PI = 1.92) and outperformed all the other methods investigated.
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".