4.6 Article

Predicting Rock Brittleness Using a Robust Evolutionary Programming Paradigm and Regression-Based Feature Selection Model

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 12, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app12147101

关键词

rock brittleness; linear genetic programming; bagged regression tree; lazy machine learning method

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation [075-15-2021-1333]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a linear genetic programming (LGP) model for estimating brittleness index (BI) in deep underground projects and validates it using local weighted linear regression (LWLR) and KStar approaches. The results show that the LGP model outperforms other methods in estimating BI.
Brittleness plays an important role in assessing the stability of the surrounding rock mass in deep underground projects. To this end, the present study deals with developing a robust evolutionary programming paradigm known as linear genetic programming (LGP) for estimating the brittleness index (BI). In addition, the bootstrap aggregate (Bagged) regression tree (BRT) and two efficient lazy machine learning approaches, namely local weighted linear regression (LWLR) and KStar approach, were examined to validate the LGP model. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to estimate the BI through the LGP model. A tunneling project in Pahang state, Malaysia, was investigated, and the requirement datasets were measured to construct the proposed models. According to the results from the testing phase, the LGP model yielded the best statistical indicators (R = 0.9529, RMSE = 0.4838, and I-A = 0.9744) for modeling BI, followed by LWLR (R = 0.9490, RMSE = 0.6607, and I-A = 0.9400), BRT (R = 0.9433, RMSE = 0.6875, and I-A = 0.9324), and KStar (R = 0.9310, RMSE = 0.7933, and I-A = 0.9095), respectively. In addition, the sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the dry density factor demonstrated the most effective prediction of BI.

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

4.6
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