Open-Pit Pushback Optimization by a Parallel Genetic Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining the design of pushbacks in an open-pit mine is a key part of optimizing the economic value of the mining project and the operational feasibility of the mine. This problem requires balancing pushbacks that have good geometric properties to ensure the smooth operation of the mining equipment and so that the scheduling of extraction maximizes the economic value by providing early access to the rich parts of the deposit. However, because of the challenging nature of the problem, practical approaches for finding the best pushbacks strongly depend on the expert criteria to ensure good operational properties. This paper introduces the Advanced Geometrically Constrained Production Scheduling Problem to account for operational space constraints, modeled as truncated cones of extraction. To find the best solution for this problem, we present a parallel genetic algorithm based on a genotype–phenotype model such that the genotype symbolizes the base block of a truncated cone, and the phenotype represents the cone itself. A central computer node evaluates these solutions, collaborating with various secondary nodes that evolve a population of feasible solutions. The PGA’s efficacy was validated using comprehensive test instances from established research. The PGA solution exhibited a consistent average copper grade across periods, with its incremental phases reflecting real-world mine geometry. Moreover, the benefits of the MeanShift clustering technique were evident, suggesting effective phase-based scheduling. The PGA’s approach ensures optimal resource utilization and offers insights into potential avenues for further model enhancements and fine-tuning.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".