4.7 Article

Interpretable modeling of metallurgical responses for an industrial coal column flotation circuit by XGBoost and SHAP-A conscious-lab development

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmst.2021.10.006

关键词

SHAP; XGBoost; Explainable AI; Coal flotation; Separation efficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduced a conscious-lab to fill the crucial data gap in industrial coal column flotation circuits, and conducted experiments using SHAP and XGBoost machine learning systems. The research found that converting data into explainable artificial intelligence models can enhance human understanding and planning of the unit, and XGBoost's predictions of metallurgical responses in coal CF circuits are highly accurate.
Surprisingly, no investigation has been explored relationships between operating variables and metallurgical responses of coal column flotation (CF) circuits based on industrial databases for under operation plants. As a novel approach, this study implemented a conscious-lab CL for filling this gap. In this approach, for developing the CL dedicated to an industrial CF circuit, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) were powerful unique machine learning systems for the first time considered. These explainable artificial intelligence models could effectively convert the dataset to a basis that improves human capabilities for better understanding, reasoning, and planning the unit. SHAP could provide precise multivariable correlation assessments between the CF dataset by using the Tabas Parvadeh coal plant (Kerman, Iran), and showed the importance of solid percentage and washing water on the metallurgical responses of the coal CF circuit. XGBoost could predict metallurgical responses (R-square > 0.88) based on operating variables that showed quite higher accuracy than typical modeling methods (Random Forest and support vector regression). (C) 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据