Evaluating the Uncertainty and Predictive Performance of Probabilistic Models Devised for Grade Estimation in a Porphyry Copper Deposit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probabilistic models are used to describe random processes and quantify prediction uncertainties in a principled way. Examples include geotechnical and geological investigations that seek to model subsurface hydrostratigraphic properties or mineral deposits. In mining geology, model validation efforts have generally lagged behind the development and deployment of computational models. One problem is the lack of industry guidelines for evaluating the uncertainty and predictive performance of probabilistic ore grade models. This paper aims to bridge this gap by developing a holistic approach that is autonomous, scalable and transferable across domains. The proposed model assessment targets three objectives. First, we aim to ensure that the predictions are reasonably calibrated with probabilities. Second, statistics are viewed as images to help facilitate large-scale simultaneous comparisons for multiple models across space and time, spanning multiple regions and inference periods. Third, variogram ratios are used to objectively measure the spatial fidelity of models. In this study, we examine models created by ordinary kriging and the Gaussian process in conjunction with sequential or random field simulations. The assessments are underpinned by statistics that evaluate the model’s predictive distributions relative to the ground truth. These statistics are standardised, interpretable and amenable to significance testing. The proposed methods are demonstrated using extensive data from a real copper mine in a grade estimation task and are accompanied by an open-source implementation. The experiments are designed to emphasise data diversity and convey insights, such as the increased difficulty of future-bench prediction (extrapolation) relative to in situ regression (interpolation). This work enables competing models to be evaluated consistently and the robustness and validity of probabilistic predictions to be tested, and it makes cross-study comparison possible irrespective of site conditions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".