Application of hybridized ensemble learning and equilibrium optimization in estimating damping ratios of municipal solid waste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The dynamic analysis of municipal solid waste (MSW) is essential for optimizing landfills and advancing sustainable development goals. Assessing damping ratio (D), a critical dynamic parameter, under laboratory conditions is costly and time-consuming, requiring specialized equipment and expertise. To streamline this process, this research leveraged several novel ensemble machine learning models integrated with the equilibrium optimizer algorithm (EOA) for the predictive analysis of damping characteristics. Data were gathered from 153 cyclic triaxial experiments on MSW, which examined the age, shear strain, weight, frequency, and percentage of plastic content. Analysis of a correlation heatmap indicated a significant dependence of D on shear strain within the collected MSW data. Subsequently, five advanced machine learning methods—adaptive boosting (AdaBoost), gradient boosting regression tree (GBRT), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), random forest (RF), and cubist regression—were employed to model D in landfill structures. Among these, the GBRT-EOA model demonstrated superior performance, with a coefficient of determination (R 2 ) of 0.898, root mean square error of 1.659, mean absolute error of 1.194, mean absolute percentage error of 0.095, and an a20-index of 0.891 for the test data. A Shapley additive explanation analysis was conducted to validate these models further, revealing the relative contributions of each studied variable to the predicted D-MSW. This holistic approach not only enhances the understanding of MSW dynamics but also aids in the efficient design and management of landfill systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".