Cave mine pillar stability analysis using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The large scale of cave mines leads to many challenges, including operational logistics and geomechanics design. In current practice, pillar stability assessment relies almost exclusively on stress analysis. However, stability is also affected by other factors including those related to operational aspects of the mining method, the effects of which are difficult to account for during the design stages. In this paper we present a case study of the application of a machine learning approach to evaluate the influence of these operational factors on pillar stability at the Chuquicamata underground cave mine in northern Chile. Due to the likely multi-factorial damage process leading to collapses and considering the different pillar conditions, a tree-based machine learning method was used and analysed to improve the understanding of the relative importance of the various contributing factors. Unlike stress analysis methods, it does not require any a priori knowledge of failure mechanisms, nor the calibration of associated controlling parameters. The proposed random forest model predicted pillar collapses with 80% accuracy despite limited samples to model from. The main contributing factors to collapses were found to be related to available pillar volume, cave front geometry, and time under abutment stress conditions. The effects and interactions of such factors were also studied, showing that careful and improved control over operational conditions can significantly reduce the likelihood of pillar collapses. These conclusions could not have been obtained from stress analysis alone, illustrating the complementary nature of conventional stress analysis and machine learning approaches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".