A multi-stage constraint programming approach to solve clustering problems in open-pit mine planning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The open-pit mine sequencing considering blocks with precedence is an NP-hard problem, which can be subdivided into long-, medium- and short-term plans, and requires different information and constraints in each stage. Through the aggregation of blocks into mining cuts, the size of the mine sequencing problem can be reduced and operational constraints can be added. In this study, a multi-stage constraint programming approach to tackle the mining cut clustering problem through a mixed integer linear programming model is proposed, as well as a geometric propagation heuristic to refine the solution. Unlike previously published studies, this approach optimizes the assignment of blocks to clusters and corrects their boundaries considering the size of the mining equipment. The methodology was validated on a real gold-ore data set. Feasible solutions were obtained in an acceptable computation time, while solutions which allowed more clusters increased their objective function and profit by up to 60%.
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.
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 it