Predicting energy consumption SAG mills through Bayesian generalized linear model and random forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mining industry consumes about 1.7% of the energy generated worldwide, which is expected to increase in the coming decades. Milling is the most energy-intensive process of a typical mining operation. Many variables (e.g., rock characteristics, mineral matrix, and equipment properties) affect energy consumption. This paper proposes that Random Forests and the Generalised Linear Model (GLM) be used to predict the energy consumption of the SAG mill, which significantly contributes to the energy consumption of mining operations. To show the performance of the proposed approach, a case study was applied to a copper mine dataset from South America. The proposed approaches were applied to forecast the SAG mill energy consumption. The outcomes demonstrated that these methods could be used to predict energy consumption. Random Forest can have a high prediction accuracy of 95% but lacks explanatory ability, as shown in R2 at 50%. GLM provided additional insights by showing the feature importances and their relationships with SAG mill energy consumption, along with considering the potential uncertainties and generating posterior probability distributions for the model outcomes. Both models identified key variables as significant predictors identically, with the GLM offering a more comprehensive view of best-case and worst-case energy consumption scenarios.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".