Comparative performance of six supervised learning methods for the development of models of hard rock pillar stability prediction
Natural Hazards, ISSN: 1573-0840, Vol: 79, Issue: 1, Page: 291-316
2015
- 191Citations
- 114Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
The prediction of pillar stability (PS) in hard rock mines is a crucial task for which many techniques and methods have been proposed in the literature including machine learning classification. In order to make the best use of the large variety of statistical and machine learning classification methods available, it is necessary to assess their performance before selecting a classifier and suggesting improvement. The objective of this paper is to compare different classification techniques for PS detection in hard rock mines. The data of this study consist of six features, namely pillar width, pillar height, the ratio of pillar width to its height, uniaxial compressive strength of the rock, pillar strength, and pillar stress. A total of 251 pillar cases between 1972 and 2011 are analyzed. Six supervised learning algorithms, including linear discriminant analysis, multinomial logistic regression, multilayer perceptron neural networks, support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and gradient boosting machine, are evaluated for their ability to learn for PS based on different input parameter combinations. In this study, the available data set is randomly split into two parts: training set (70 %) and test set (30 %). A repeated tenfold cross-validation procedure (ten repeats) is applied to determine the optimal parameter values during modeling, and an external testing set is employed to validate the prediction performance of models. Two performance measures, namely classification accuracy rate and Cohen’s kappa, are employed. The analysis of the accuracy together with kappa for the PS data set demonstrates that SVM and RF achieve comparable median classification accuracy rate and Cohen’s kappa values. All models are fitted by “R” programs with the libraries and functions described in this study.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know