Implementation of Surrogate Models for the Analysis of Slope Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerical modeling is increasingly used to analyze practical rock engineering problems. The geological strength index (GSI) is a critical input for many rock engineering problems. However, no available method allows the quantification of GSI input parameters, and engineers must consider a range of values. As projects progress, these ranges can be narrowed down. Machine learning (ML) algorithms have been coupled with numerical modeling to create surrogate models. The concept of surrogate models aligns well with the deductive nature of data availability in rock engineering projects. In this paper, we demonstrated the use of surrogate models to analyze two common rock slope stability problems: (1) determining the maximum stable depth of a vertical excavation and (2) determining the allowable angle of a slope with a fixed height. Compared with support vector machines and K-nearest algorithms, the random forest model performs best on a data set of 800 numerical models for the problems discussed in the paper. For all these models, regression-type models outperform classification models. Once the surrogate model is confirmed to preform accurately, instantaneous predictions of maximum excavation depth and slope angle can be achieved according to any range of input parameters. This capability is used to investigate the impact of narrowing GSI range estimation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".