Hybrid extreme gradient boosting regressor models for the multi-objective mixture design optimization of cementitious mixtures incorporating mine tailings as fine aggregates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design of cementitious mixtures incorporating mine tailings as fine aggregates is a multi-objective optimization (MOO) problem, in which both the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and cost of the mixtures need to be considered simultaneously. Given that data-driven methods have shown promising results when solving similar MOO problems, this study developed an extreme gradient boosting regressor (XGBR) model on a dataset extracted from the literature to predict the UCS. Among the efforts taken to improve the models, a genetic algorithm (GA)-based XGBR model demonstrated the optimal prediction performance, with an R 2 of 0.959. Next, the GA-XGBR model and a cost equation were used as objective functions in the MOO problem. The non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm with elite strategy (NSGA-II) was selected to solve the optimization problem. A case study was conducted, generating mixture designs that offered improved trade-offs between cost and UCS compared to experimental designs. Finally, a graphical user interface was developed to provide access to the prediction model and optimization method. Overall, this work can be used as a guide for optimal mixture designs as it facilitates informed decision-making before the actual applications.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".