Machine learning algorithms for real-time coal recognition using monitor-while-drilling data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate coal seam identification is crucial in coal mining to prevent resource wastage and potential damage to coal seams from misplaced explosives. The current industry standard involves drilling past the seam and refilling the hole, a resource-intensive process. Manual seam detection is error-prone, and geophysical logging, performed for only a subset of drill holes, is costly and time-consuming. Monitor-While-Drilling (MWD) data captures drill response metrics like rotary speed and torque, influenced by local geology. These MWD measurements offer insights into geology, including hardness and rock type; They can be used for real-time rock recognition using advanced artificial intelligence techniques. This study focuses on developing tools for precise coal recognition and identification of the top of coal seams using MWD data. Several Machine Learning classifiers are employed, each providing unique data interpretations, and their results are integrated into a more reliable prediction. An artificial neural network is used for rock density regression, which is then used to correct depth offset between geophysical loggings and drill MWD data. The research demonstrates that MWD data can enable real-time coal seam identification, reducing the reliance on time-consuming and expensive geophysical logging. The integrated model accurately identifies the top of coal seams within a ± 20 cm margin.
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 | 0.001 | 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".