MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hybrid extreme gradient boosting regressor models for the multi-objective mixture design optimization of cementitious mixtures incorporating mine tailings as fine aggregates

2024· article· en· W4403144195 on OpenAlexafffund
Chathuranga Balasooriya Arachchilage, Guangping Huang, Jian Zhao, Chengkai Fan, Wei Victor Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCement and Concrete Composites · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTailingsCementitiousBoosting (machine learning)Environmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceGeologyComposite materialArtificial intelligenceMetallurgyCement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCement and Concrete CompositesSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207