MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Machine Learning Based Delay Spread Prediction in Underground Mine

2025· article· W4417132206 on OpenAlexaff
Saif Eddine Hadji, Mourad Nedil

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Mean squared errorMultipath propagationRandom forestDelay spreadCorrelation coefficientSupport vector machineRegression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a machine learning-based approach for predicting the Root Mean Square Delay Spread (RMSDS) in underground mine environments. Real-world measurements at 28 GHz were collected in the Lamaque gold mine, utilizing a virtual massive MIMO array and a frequencydomain channel sounder to characterize the multipath behavior. The propagation complexity in the confined mine gallery, with its waveguide effects and high-order reflections, presents specific challenges for traditional modeling. An XGBoost-based regression model was developed, using features such as separation distance, <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$\mathbf{R x}$</tex> array coordinates, and operating frequency. The model achieved an RMSE of 0.87, MAE of 0.69, <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$\mathbf{R}^{\mathbf{2}}$</tex> of 0.52, and a correlation coefficient of 0.75, indicating moderate prediction accuracy. While the results demonstrate the potential of machine learning for delay spread estimation, they also highlight the limitations in capturing complex propagation effects. The study underscores the need for incorporating additional environmental parameters to enhance model robustness and reliability.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and ModelingFrench-language works237,207