Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Machine Learning with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mlwa

A comprehensive survey on machine learning applications for drilling and

blasting in surface mining
Venkat Munagala a , Srikanth Thudumu a ,∗, Irini Logothetis a , Sushil Bhandari b , Rajesh Vasa a ,
Kon Mouzakis a
a
Applied Artificial Intelligence Institute ( A2 I2 ), Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Victoria, Australia
b MineExcellence, Bundoora, 3083, Victoria, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Drilling and blasting operations are pivotal for productivity and safety in hard rock surface mining. These
Blasting operations are restricted due to complexities such as site-specific uncertainties, safety risks, and environmental
Drilling and economic constraints. Machine Learning (ML) is a transformative approach to tackle these complexities
Machine learning
resulting in significant cost reductions. ML applications can reduce overall blasting costs by up to 23% and
Optimization
decrease the amount of explosives by as much as 89% compared to traditional methods. This survey presents
Surface mining
a comprehensive review of how ML can be applied to optimize drill and blast designs while accounting for
its operational challenges. Our research highlights the difficulties in collecting quality site-specific data, the
complexity of interpreting this data into insightful information, the selection of ML models relating to mining
objectives, and the need for established methods to assess blast efficiency quantitatively. We provide a synthesis
of ML model development practices in drilling and blasting and demonstrate the value of ML methodologies.
Based on our survey, we present actionable recommendations for developing ML methodologies to improve
safety, reduce costs, and enhance efficiency in drilling and blasting processes. This includes establishing
standardized data schematics, multiobjective model optimization, and comprehensive evaluation metrics. These
benefits can guide mine management and engineers to adopt ML techniques and improve on-ground operational
practices. This survey aims to serve as a resource for both practitioners and researchers shaping the future
research direction in ML applications for drilling and blasting practices.

1. Introduction
Mining is the process of extracting minerals from the Earth’s sur-
face. A mine life cycle typically consists of four stages: exploration,
mine development and planning, mine operations, and mine closure.
During the exploration stage, potential mining sites are surveyed and
mapped to investigate the possible presence of mineral deposits. Mine
development and planning involves the construction of infrastructure
such as administration buildings, roads, power lines, and processing
plants. Mine operations are the extraction and processing of the min-
eral. This includes operations such as drilling and blasting, loading,
hauling, dumping, crushing, and screening. The final stage, mine clo-
sure, involves rehabilitating the site to its pre-mining conditions to
mitigate the environmental impacts of mining and ensure the long-term
sustainability of the area. Two common methods of mining are surface
and underground. Surface mining is used when the mineral deposits are
near the surface, while underground mining is for mineral deposits deep
below the surface. The choice of mining method depends on a variety
of factors, including the type and quality of the mineral deposit, as well
as economic and environmental considerations (Bhandari, 1997).
In surface mining, drilling and blasting are standard methods to
break the hard rock into desirable fragments due to their applica-
bility in various geological conditions and highly productive nature.
As the primary operations in a mine operations stage, its implica-
tions extend to the downstream processes (Abbaspour, Drebenstedt,
Badroddin, & Maghaminik, 2018). However, drilling and blasting are
cost-intensive processes accounting for 15%–60% of the total min-
ing costs depending on geological and geographical conditions and
production requirements (Bilim, Çelik, & Kekeç, 2017). Therefore, it
is crucial that drill and blast designs are cost-effective and aligned
with downstream operational requirements for the mines’ long-term
viability.
Drill and blast design development is a complicated process involv-
ing a multitude of controllable and uncontrollable factors. Controllable

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: t.munagala@deakin.edu.au (V. Munagala), srikanth.thudumu@deakin.edu.au (S. Thudumu), rena.logothetis@deakin.edu.au
(I. Logothetis), sushil@mineexcellence.com (S. Bhandari), rajesh.vasa@deakin.edu.au (R. Vasa), kon.mouzakis@deakin.edu.au (K. Mouzakis).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mlwa.2023.100517
Received 22 August 2023; Received in revised form 19 November 2023; Accepted 26 November 2023
Available online 11 December 2023
2666-8270/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
V. Munagala et al.
factors can be manipulated by mine engineers, such as hole character-
istics and the amount of explosives used. In contrast, uncontrollable
factors can be sporadic and difficult to predict (Bhandari, 1997), such
as geological and meteorological conditions. The limitations and uncer-
tainties associated with these factors, coupled with the explosive nature
of blasting, result in significant environmental effects such as ground
vibration, air overpressure, flyrock, dust, and fumes (Abbaspour et al.,
2018). Therefore, along with meeting the production goals of the mine,
it is also essential to comply with local environmental regulations to
safeguard the environment.
To develop drill and blast designs, mine engineers define the site-
specific constants (Cunningham, 1983) by using empirical equations
and experimental (trial & error) methods. This can be time-consuming
and expensive. Moreover, the variables used in empirical equations
limit their applicability to specific sites. Recent technological advance-
ments, such as the adoption of digital and automation technologies,
have revolutionized the data collection process at mining sites. As a
result, the volume and variety of data available to mine engineers have
increased significantly and can be leveraged to inform and optimize
drill and blast designs. However, this has created challenges in terms
of data handling and processing (Asr, Kakaie, Ataei, & Mohammadi,
2019; Bołoz & Biały, 2020; Rogers et al., 2019) due to its scale and
complexity.
To tackle the challenges posed by big data, researchers have begun
to harness ML techniques for the optimization of drill and blast designs,
utilizing strategies from heuristics to hybrid methods. Recent studies
have demonstrated that ML techniques can reduce overall costs associ-
ated with drilling and blasting. Bakhtavar, Sadiq, and Hewage (2021)
shows a 23% cost reduction in blasting operations through the applica-
tion of ML. Furthermore, Bayat, Monjezi, Mehrdanesh, and Khandelwal
(2022) and Bayat, Monjezi, Rezakhah, and Armaghani (2020) report re-
ductions in charge per delay by 89% and 88%, respectively, through the
optimization of blasting patterns using ML algorithms. Similarly, Reza-
eineshat, Monjezi, Mehrdanesh, and Khandelwal (2020) achieved a
57% reduction in charge per delay, signifying direct cost benefits in
explosive usage and associated blasting costs. These advancements
underscore the efficiencies and importance of integrating ML models
into drilling and blasting operations, enhancing cost-effectiveness and
operational optimization. Yet, this field of research is nascent, facing
issues such as data leakage and problems with reproducibility. More-
over, while ML models prove effective in one site, they often require
modifications to fit into a new environment emphasizing the need to
bridge the gap between academic research and real-world industrial
practices.
This survey aims to provide a wide-ranging overview of existing
ML model development practices in drilling and blasting. Neverthe-
less, despite our rigorous approach to selecting relevant literature,
we must acknowledge the potential for limitations in our coverage.
Some relevant research might not be included due to factors such as
availability, accessibility, and focus of this review. While our selection
process is thorough, it might inevitably reflect certain criteria that
might introduce potential biases.
In this survey, we undertake a comprehensive exploration of ex-
isting ML model development practices within the context of drilling
and blasting. We highlight current optimization techniques and their
challenges and limitations, specifically the difficulties researchers face
when developing ML models for integration into the drilling and blast-
ing process at mining sites. This paper begins by describing the ML
model development workflow in Section 2, followed by related sur-
veys in Section 3, and the method used to conduct our survey in
Section 4. Sections 5 and 6 present a comprehensive review of meth-
ods and approaches reported across literature for ML model develop-
ment. In Section 7, we summarize the current challenges and provide
recommendations for future research.
2
Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517
2. Machine learning workflow
ML is a subset of artificial intelligence that has emerged as a pivotal
technology with transformative potential in diverse sectors, including
the mining industry. Central to the concept of ML are algorithms
that facilitate learning from data, thus enabling systems to identify
patterns and make predictions or decisions. This learning often out-
paces human capacity in terms of speed and accuracy. ML models can
be broadly classified into four types: supervised learning, unsupervised
learning, semi-supervised learning, and reinforcement learning. Each type
has its own unique strengths, weaknesses, and uses, and the choice of
model is highly dependent on the nature and format of the available
data (Jordan & Mitchell, 2015; Sun, Cao, Zhu, & Zhao, 2019).
Supervised learning is often used when we have labeled data. The
algorithm learns a mapping function from given inputs to outputs and
enables the model to make predictions when new input is provided. Re-
gression and classification models are common examples of supervised
learning (Kotsiantis, Zaharakis, Pintelas, et al., 2007; Stulp & Sigaud,
2015). In contrast, unsupervised learning models work with unlabeled
data, focusing on exploratory data analysis to uncover underlying
patterns. This type of learning is particularly useful for clustering and
associative tasks such as customer segmentation in marketing, helping
to identify distinct characteristics within data segments (Ghahramani,
2003; Längkvist, Karlsson, & Loutfi, 2014). Semi-supervised learning
combines elements of both supervised and unsupervised learning, uti-
lizing a mix of labeled and unlabeled data. This approach effectively
navigates the challenges of needing structured labeled data, making
it versatile for various training scenarios (Van Engelen & Hoos, 2020;
Zhu, 2005). Lastly, reinforcement learning involves an agent learning
to make optimal decisions through trial and error, receiving rewards or
penalties for actions taken. It is commonly used in fields like robotics,
gaming, and navigation where decision-making is key (Sutton & Barto,
2018).
While a variety of ML models exist, there is no one-size-fits-all
approach to their development. Different workflows have been sug-
gested, ranging from Amershi et al.’s nine-stage model focusing on
data handling and model development to de Souza Nascimento et al.
(2019)’s more compact four-stage process with additional substages.
Our study adopts the latter, as shown in Fig. 1, due to its relevance
to our specific research context.
• Problem understanding is domain-specific and involves defin-
ing the goals and requirements of the model. In the context of
drilling and blasting, this includes identifying the parameters that
need optimization and establishing the metrics that the model
should aim to improve, such as rock fragmentation size, ground
vibration, or cost.
• Data handling focuses on preparing the data for building the
ML model. This includes data collection, preprocessing, and fea-
ture engineering. In drill and blast operations, this could involve
collecting design data from sensors and equipment, cleaning the
data to remove outliers or inconsistencies, and identifying the key
features or inputs of the drill and blast design that the ML model
will use.
• Model building involves selecting and training the most appro-
priate ML model and evaluating its performance. In drill and blast
operations, various ML models can be considered, each with their
own strengths and limitations. Performance evaluation is crucial
in determining how well the model is able to predict or optimize
drill and blast outcomes.
• Model monitoring ensures that the ML model continues to per-
form well as new data is collected. It involves checking the
model’s performance over time and updating the model as nec-
essary to reflect changes in the environment. For drill and blast
operations, this could involve continuously monitoring the actual
outcomes of the model’s recommended drill and blast design and
updating the model if blast performance declines.
V. Munagala et al.
Fig. 1. The four stages and the respective substages of the ML workflow (arrows denote feedback loops to the previous stage).
The ML workflow is iterative, with feedback loops between stages.
It is common to revise previous steps based on outcomes and insights
gained. The sequence of substages can vary based on the problem
and application domain context. In the following sections, we will
explore each of these stages in more detail, focusing specifically on their
application to drill and blast operations in mining.
3. Related surveys
This section presents a comprehensive overview of recent research
on the ML models and techniques used for drilling and blasting opti-
mization in surface mining. We discuss each study’s specific focus and
contributions, providing insights into the current state of the field and
identifying the knowledge gap that our survey aims to address.
A holistic view of the technology landscape in mining is offered
by various previous studies. For instance, Ali and Frimpong (2020)
explores a broad range of technological implementations across differ-
ent mining stages. Their focus on the interconnections among mineral
exploration, mine planning, machine operations, drilling and blast-
ing, and mineral processing offers an extensive perspective. In paral-
lel, Shahmoradi, Talebi, Roghanchi, and Hassanalian (2020) highlights
how drone technology can significantly enhance data collection and
analysis in mining operations. The application areas range from geolog-
ical mapping and ore control to post-blast measurements and monitor-
ing, thus contributing to improved operational efficiency. While these
studies provide valuable insights, a systematic comparison reveals a gap
in the granular analysis of ML methodologies employed in drill and
blast design optimization.
Specific studies focusing on the drilling and blasting stage give
in-depth overviews and analyses of current research methodologies,
including ML and empirical models. Van der Walt and Spiteri (2020)
examines various methods used for predicting and measuring flyrock,
spanning areas like artificial intelligence, rock engineering, empirical
and statistical analysis, and ballistics. In contrast, Yan, Hou, and Fei
(2020) scrutinizes different ground vibration prediction methodologies,
including empirical, artificial intelligence, multiple regression, and sim-
ulation methods, and further extends to sensitivity analyses and model
evaluation metrics. Dumakor-Dupey, Arya, and Jha (2021) and Al-
Bakri and Sazid (2021) present a comprehensive overview of predictive
and optimization models for various post-blast impacts, including rock
fragmentation, ground vibration, flyrock, airblast, and backbreak. Re-
cently, Abd Elwahab, Topal, and Jang (2023) carried out a meticulous
study of ML applications in surface mine blasting, recognizing hy-
brid/ensemble ML methods as more effective than others in 61% of
the studied cases. This research also highlighted the frequent utilization
of controllable parameters in blast design development, asserting their
critical role in surface blasting predictions and optimizations.
Furthermore, some studies focus on the practical challenges of
model development and deployment. Qi (2020) highlights the complex-
ities inherent to data collection in mining environments. The intricacies
of this process necessitate robust data handling procedures to ensure
the effective use of data in model development. This idea relates back
3
Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517
to the earlier discussion on ML methods, reinforcing the importance
of data quality and handling in the performance of these methods.
Likewise, Lawal and Kwon (2021) presents the difficulties in applying
advanced models in real-world mining scenarios, offering valuable rec-
ommendations to enhance model understandability and address issues
related to data availability.
Although the aforementioned surveys offer valuable insights into
various aspects of technological implementation in mining, none pro-
vide a systematic analysis of the entire ML workflow used for drill and
blast design optimization. Our study aims to analyze the literature in
the context of this ML workflow, focusing on production, environmen-
tal safety, and rock stability aspects of drilling and blasting. We aim to
answer the following research questions:
1. What data sources and data types are used for ML models in
drilling and blasting?
2. How is the drill and blast design data preprocessed to train the
ML models?
3. What state-of-the-art ML algorithms and model development
methods are applied for optimizing drill and blast design?
4. How are the performance of ML models evaluated in the context
of drilling and blasting?
5. What are the key challenges and potential solutions in the
practical application of ML models for drilling and blasting
optimization?
Through these questions, this study aims to thoroughly review the
ML techniques used for drill and blast design optimization, bridging the
existing gap in the literature.
4. Survey methodology
The survey aims to conduct a comprehensive analysis of research
that utilizes ML models to optimize drill and blast design parameters in
surface mining. Our focus is on studies examining rock fragmentation,
rock throw, ground vibration, flyrock, air overpressure, backbreak, and
toe formation. For simplicity and clarity in our analysis, we classified
these study objectives into three broad areas: production, environment,
and rock stability. The production category encompasses factors related
to the operational efficiency of the drilling and blasting process. The
environment category comprises considerations surrounding the envi-
ronmental impact of blasting. Lastly, the rock stability category includes
factors influencing the stability of the mining site and the safety of
personnel. The distribution of these categories is illustrated in Fig. 2.
To ensure thoroughness and rigor in our comprehensive survey,
we adopted the methodology put forth by Kitchenham and Brereton
(2013). This systematic approach involved several key steps: identify-
ing keywords and executing combinational queries in various
databases, applying inclusion and exclusion criteria (refer to Sec-
tion 4.2) to filter the studies, and screening the filtered literature for
the final qualitative synthesis. Through this process and the additional
snowballing technique to incorporate the most recent literature, we
V. Munagala et al. Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517

Fig. 2. A classification of blasting objectives.

Table 1
Keywords for search query.
Category
Drilling and blasting
Machine learning
Keywords
rock fragmentation, rock breakage, rock throw,
rock displacement, flyrock, ground vibration,
peak particle velocity, air overpressure, air
blast, noise, backbreak, toe, drilling, blasting,
drill and blast design, surface mining, open-pit
mining, open-cast mining
prediction, optimization, minimization,
estimation, machine learning, artificial
intelligence

identified and selected a total of 208 relevant studies for our analysis.
Fig. 3 illustrates a detailed overview of this process. The goal was to
compile a set of studies that provided meaningful insight into the use
of ML in drilling and blasting optimization.

4.1. Corpus curation

The relevant literature for our survey was selected by establishing

a systematic approach to extract keywords to guide our search process.
We initially conducted a preliminary review of similar studies in the
field of drilling and blasting to determine frequently used terminology.
We then compiled a list of keywords relevant to our survey objective
and divided them into two categories: ‘‘drilling and blasting" and
‘‘machine learning", refer to Table 1. We constructed a search query
using these keywords with relevant synonyms. This query was executed
on three popular databases: ‘‘Google Scholar", ‘‘Scopus", and ‘‘Web of
Science’’. The search yielded 758 records, including journal articles,
conference papers, thesis reports, white papers, commercial reports,
books, and others. The snowballing process added 51 more studies to
our initial set of records, and each of these newly identified studies was
then subjected to the same filtering and inclusion process as the initial
set of records. To understand the evolution and advances of ML models
in drilling and blasting, we conducted a search from 2005 to the present
with a particular focus on the research conducted in the last five years.

Fig. 3. An overview of survey methodology.

4.2. Filtering and inclusion

We conducted manual filtering based on inclusion criteria (IC) and

exclusion criteria (EC), as shown below:

4
V. Munagala et al.
Fig. 4. Temporal trends in the distribution of study categories.
IC1 Study is peer-reviewed;
IC2 Study pertains to drilling and blasting;
IC3 Study involves the development or comparison of ML models
in drilling and blasting scenarios;
IC4 Study provides a description of the dataset used;
EC1 Study is not in English;
EC2 Study is a duplicate or non-peer-reviewed;
EC3 Study is unrelated to surface mining;
EC4 Study does not propose or compare an ML model;
EC5 Study is unrelated to drilling and blasting outcome;
EC6 Study proposes a method or technique for drilling and
blasting outcome measurement.
In the initial screening, we identified and removed 397 records
that were duplicates, did not pertain to the domain of drilling and
blasting in surface mining, or were not written in English. A further
40 studies that were non-peer-reviewed or of low academic rigor were
excluded, such as technical reports, conference papers, and books. We
then screened abstracts and removed 142 records that were unrelated
to any one of the categories outlined in Fig. 2 or did not include any
ML. The remaining 230 studies were thoroughly examined for quality
screening. 22 were rejected for lacking information on the dataset
used for training the ML model or blast objective quantification studies
such as image analysis for rock fragmentation (Bamford, Esmaeili, &
Schoellig, 2021). During this process, we encountered two studies with
multiple experiments targeting different objectives. As these experi-
ments had distinct configurations, we treated each as a separate entity
for the purpose of our analysis. Consequently, 208 studies were selected
for the qualitative synthesis.
We categorized these 208 studies into three categories as illustrated
in Fig. 2: Production, Environmental, and Rock Stability. Studies that
developed an ML model to concurrently predict multiple objectives that
crossed into more than one category were classified as Multiobjective.
The temporal trends of these categories can be seen in Fig. 4. A
marked scarcity of studies prior to 2011 could be attributed to the
then-nascent state of ML technology and its application to drilling and
blasting. Notably, the rapid technological advancements since 2011
have spurred an increased interest in this area, particularly from 2016
onwards. This trend underscores the necessity and timeliness of this
survey and the need to identify efficient and effective approaches for
developing ML models for drill and blast optimization.
Table 2 shows the distribution of the identified studies across the
different categories, taking into account the separately treated exper-
iments from the two multi-experiment studies. It is clear that there
is a focus on minimizing the environmental impact and a notable
shift towards sustainable practices in drilling and blasting where 70%
(145) of the studies prioritize Environmental Safety. The low count of
studies on Rock Stability and Multiobjective suggest potential technical
5
Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517
Table 2
Number of studies per category.
Category Study Count
Production 30
(rock fragmentation, rock throw)
Environmental safety 145
(ground vibration, flyrock, air overpressure)
Rock stability 20
(back break, toe formation)
Multiobjective 13
challenges and the resource-intensive nature of these areas. Thus, in
the following sections, we delve deeper into the three key stages of this
process: data overview and preprocessing, model selection and training,
and evaluation.
5. Data overview and preprocessing
Data preprocessing is the foremost and crucial step in the ML work-
flow. Its purpose is to ensure the quality of the data. The performance of
an ML model is directly impacted by the quality of the data it is trained
upon (Halevy, Norvig, & Pereira, 2009). Therefore, we initially focus
on the variety of data used across the literature. We then review the
various preprocessing methods employed to prepare the data for model
training. Despite its importance, many neglect the data preprocessing
stage as it is a manual process that can be time-consuming (Xin, Wu,
Lee, Salehi, & Parameswaran, 2021).
5.1. Data understanding
Drill and blast design is a complex process influenced by numerous
factors, which are commonly classified into controllable and uncon-
trollable factors (Bhandari, 1997). These factors are collected from
various sources that comprise text, images, audio, video, and spatial
data types (Qi, 2020; Shahmoradi et al., 2020). However, data avail-
ability and quality can vary greatly depending on mine characteristics,
capabilities, and methods employed for data collection. This diversity
can cause distinct and varying datasets that were used in studies. This
led us to analyze the dependent and independent features from the
selected literature for understandability. Based on this analysis, we
developed a comprehensive taxonomy of all the drilling and blasting
factors; refer to Figs. 5 and 6.
Our analysis revealed that common controllable factors include
burden, spacing, maximum charge per delay, powder factor, and stem-
ming. Common uncontrollable factors are rock density, rock quality
V. Munagala et al.
Fig. 5. Taxonomy of drill and blast uncontrollable factors: () for units of measurement or factor value, and {} for the number of studies that have used the factor. NA in ()
represents no unit of measurement or is derived from measurements that do not have measurements.
designation, p-wave velocity, rock mass rating, and blastability index.
Despite the fact that all literature agrees that uncontrollable factors
play a significant role in developing the drill and blast design, only 37%
(78) of studies have considered at least one uncontrollable factor in ML
models. This exclusion could be because of the complexities involved in
measuring geological factors and the absence of an industry standard
parameter set. As a result, it is at the authors’ discretion to identify
factors to consider.
The volume of data used in these studies was another important
factor to consider, with most studies having trained their ML models
on datasets comprising 100 or fewer records. This low volume may
be due to a lack of organized data collection mechanisms in a mine
or the complexities involved in recording the data, such as geological
factors (Xie et al., 2021).
5.2. Data preprocessing
The use of ML made data a first-class citizen. To develop a robust ML
model, the training data needs to be accurate, fair, and robust. Prepar-
ing the data to develop the model involves cleaning, transformation,
and dimensionality reduction. This section delves into the various data
preprocessing methods employed by researchers to create quality data.
A vital step in data preprocessing is data cleaning. Despite its crucial
role in ensuring the quality of data for ML models, it is often over-
looked. Data cleaning involves processes such as eliminating duplicate
records, handling missing fields, and identifying and rectifying outliers
in the data (Chu, Ilyas, Krishnan, & Wang, 2016; Rahm, Do, et al.,
2000). Neglecting data cleaning may lead to skewed or biased results,
undermining the reliability of the models (Aggarwal & Yu, 2001). In the
context of drilling and blasting, where data can be structured, semi-
structured, or unstructured, properly addressing data anomalies such
6
Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517
as duplicate records, outliers, or missing fields is challenging. These
anomalies result from the recording mechanisms employed in a mine
and must be addressed to ensure the robustness of the ML model.
Out of the 208 studies that developed ML models, we identified
only 57% (118) studies provided information about the steps taken
to prepare the data and 6% (12 studies) mentioned the removal of
outliers (Arthur et al., 2022; Bayat et al., 2022, 2020; Faradonbeh,
Armaghani, Amnieh, & Mohamad, 2018; Jahed Armaghani et al., 2018;
Ohadi, Sun, Esmaieli, & Consens, 2020; Yu, Koopialipoor, et al., 2021;
Yu, Shi, Zhou, Chen, & Qiu, 2020; Yu, Shi, Zhou, Gou, et al., 2020;
Yu, Shi, Zhou, et al., 2021; Zhang, Li, Gui, & Zhou, 2022; Ziggah,
Temeng, & Arthur, 2023). This lack of attention to outlier removal
may be due to the small dataset sizes, where removing records could
decrease the data further. Hence, there was a trade-off between clean
data and dataset size. However, it is crucial to strike a balance between
clean data and dataset size. A robust data cleaning procedure ensures
accurate, reliable, and representative data (García, Luengo, & Herrera,
2015), resulting in a reliable and generalized ML model.
Another important step in the data preprocessing stage is dimen-
sionality reduction. It is a feature selection technique used to iden-
tify important features that impact the ML model’s output. The non-
important features are ignored, resulting in a reduction of input fea-
tures and, in turn, model complexity. A review of the literature re-
vealed that 8% (17 out of 208) studies implemented various reduction
strategies, such as correlation coefficient (Guo, Nguyen, Bui, & Ar-
maghani, 2021), mean impact value (Zhongya & Xiaoguang, 2018),
linear modeling (Zhou, Armaghani, Ye, Khari, & Motahari, 2021),
principal component analysis (Babaeian, Sereshki, Ataei, Nehring, &
Mohammadi, 2023; Hudaverdi, 2022), neighborhood component anal-
ysis (Ziggah et al., 2023), cosine similarity (Komadja et al., 2022),
random forest (Han, Jahed Armaghani, Tarinejad, Zhou, & Tahir, 2020;
V. Munagala et al.
Fig. 6. A taxonomy of drill and blast controllable factors with measurement units and study frequency indicated: () for units or factor values and {} for number of studies.
Kadingdi et al., 2022), boruta algorithm (Chen, Asteris, et al., 2022),
Gradient Boosted Tree (GBT) (Peng, Zeng, Armaghani, Hasanipanah,
& Chen, 2021), and Chi-Square Automatic Interaction Detection algo-
rithm (CHAID) (Zeng et al., 2021). Some studies used the Fuzzy-Delphi
by leveraging expert knowledge (He et al., 2021; Li, Koopialipoor,
& Armaghani, 2021). For example, GBT Peng et al. (2021) excluded
spacing to burden ratio and stemming length parameters as they were
found to be less important. Zeng et al. (2021) used the CHAID algorithm
to identify burden to spacing ratio and spacing features as less significant,
resulting in their omission from further analysis.
Transformation is another crucial preprocessing step to ensure data
compatibility, especially when multiple data formats, such as numerical
and categorical values, exist in the dataset. Although normalization can
improve a model’s performance and reliability, not all ML techniques
require data to be normalized. For instance, tree-based machine models
such as XGBoost (He et al., 2021) and random forest (Kumar, Mishra, &
Choudhary, 2022; Zhang, Zhou, et al., 2020; Zhou, Asteris, Armaghani,
& Pham, 2020) do not necessarily require normalized data. The choice
of transformation thus depends on both the nature of the data and the
selected model. Despite the common use of min–max normalization
in the reviewed literature, the necessity of data normalization re-
mains unclear. For instance, studies Yang, Nikafshan Rad, Hasanipanah,
Bakhshandeh Amnieh, and Nekouie (2020) and Nguyen, Choi, Bui, and
Nguyen-Thoi (2019) employed similar model development strategies,
yet their approaches to data normalization differed. Similarly, in pre-
dicting air overpressure using artificial neural networks, Bui, Nguyen,
Le, Bui, and Do (2020) normalized the data, whereas Nguyen, Bui, Bui,
and Mai (2020) did not.
Data preprocessing is important to the accuracy, reliability, and
generalizability of the ML model and should be emphasized in the ML
7
Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517
workflow for drill and blast design. We advocate for future research
in this field to rigorously and consistently apply data preprocessing
steps. This approach will ensure that ML models provide valuable and
trustworthy insights into drilling and blasting.
6. Model selection, training, and evaluation
This section presents the different approaches researchers have used
to develop, train, and evaluate ML models. Firstly, we focus on how the
data is split for training and testing. Then we talk about the problems of
the ML models and the approaches researchers have taken to develop
these models. Finally, we delve into model evaluations, their common
metrics, and major trends in evaluation methods. Table 3 provides a
summary of our survey covering the key aspects of each study, includ-
ing ML models applied, dataset size, presence of uncontrollable factors
in the dataset, whether data preprocessing was included, the focus
and approach of the model, and the evaluation methods employed.
Each study is categorized under the areas of production, environmental
safety, rock stability, and multiobjective based on the primary focus
(refer to Section 4).
6.1. Data split
Splitting data into training, validation, and testing datasets is crit-
ical in developing and evaluating an ML model (Joseph, 2022). The
training set allows the model to learn patterns, the validation set for
tuning the model’s parameters, and the testing set to evaluate the
model’s performance. This segregation is vital for assessing the model’s
generalization capability — its ability to apply learned patterns to
unseen data, thereby mitigating overfitting and underfitting (Larsen &
V. Munagala et al. Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517

Table 3
Survey summary.
Model (Study) Dataset U. factor/s Preproc. Model development Model evaluation
size applied
Focus Approach Metrics Strategy

FA-GBM (Xie et al. (2021)) 111 No Yes P Hybrid MAE, RMSE, 𝑅2 Single
GA-ANFIS (Zhou, Li, Arslan, Hasanipanah, and Bakhshandeh Amnieh (2021)) 88 Yes Yes P Hybrid RMSE, 𝑅2 , VAF, MEDAE Single
FA-BGAM (Fang, Nguyen, Bui, Nguyen-Thoi, and Zhou (2021)) 136 No NA P Hybrid MAE, RMSE, 𝑅2 Single
GWO-SVM (Li, Yang, et al. (2021)) 76 Yes NA P Hybrid MSE, 𝑅2 , VAF Single
ANN (Mehrdanesh, Monjezi, Khandelwal, and Bayat (2021)) 353 Yes NA P Individual MAE, RMSE, VAF, 𝑅2 Single
SVM (Miao, Zhang, Wu, Li, Yan, and Lin (2021)) NA Yes NA P Individual Relative error Single
ANN (Rosales-Huamani, Perez-Alvarado, Rojas-Villanueva, and Castillo-Sequera (2020)) 47 Yes NA P Individual 𝑅2 Single
CSO (Huang, Asteris, Manafi Khajeh Pasha, Mohammed, and Hasanipanah (2020)) 75 Yes Yes P Individual RMSE, 𝑅2 , VAF, MABE Single
ACO-BRT (Zhang, Bui, Trung, Nguyen, and Bui (2020)) 136 No Yes P Hybrid RMSE, 𝑅2 , MAE Single
FA-ANFIS (Mojtahedi, Ebtehaj, Hasanipanah, Bonakdari, and Amnieh (2019)) 72 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, NS Single
PSO (Sayevand and Arab (2019)) 80 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, MABE, NS Single
ANN (Dimitraki, Christaras, Marinos, Vlahavas, and Arampelos (2019)) 100 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, MAPE, SS Single
ANN (Mehrdanesh, Monjezi, and Sayadi (2018)) 432 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , VAF, RMSE, MAE Single
Production

ICA (Sayevand, Arab, and Golzar (2018)) 80 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , VAF, RMSE Single
GPR (Gao, Karbasi, Hasanipanah, Zhang, and Guo (2018)) 72 No NA P Individual RMSE, PRMSE, MBE, MAPE, 𝑅2 Single
PSO-ANFIS (Hasanipanah, Amnieh, Arab, and Zamzam (2018)) 72 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, MEDAE, NS Single
FIS (Shams, Monjezi, Majd, and Armaghani (2015)) 185 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Single
ANFIS (Esmaeili, Salimi, Drebenstedt, Abbaszadeh, and Aghajani Bazzazi (2015)) 80 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, MAPE Single
ANN (Enayatollahi, Aghajani Bazzazi, and Asadi (2014)) 70 Yes NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, SEP, NS Single
ANN (Monjezi, Mohamadi, Barati, and Khandelwal (2014)) 135 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Single
SVM (Shi, Jian, Wu, Huang, and Wei (2012)) 102 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Single
ANN (Kulatilake, Hudaverdi, and Wu (2012)) 109 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
ANN (Bahrami, Monjezi, Goshtasbi, and Ghazvinian (2011)) 220 Yes NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
ANN (Monjezi, Amiri, Farrokhi, and Goshtasbi (2010)) 132 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, Er Single
GA-SVM (Yu, Shi, Zhou, et al. (2021)) 205 Yes Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , MSE, VAF Ranking
EO-ANN (Yu, Shi, et al. (2021)) NA No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , MSE, VAF Single
GWO-SVM (Yu, Shi, Zhou, Chen, et al. (2020)) 137 Yes Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, VAF Single
JSO-LightGBM (Yari, He, Armaghani, Abbasi, and Mohamad (2023)) 234 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, MAPE Single
ANN (Amoako, Jha, and Zhong (2022)) 102 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , MSE Single
XGBoost (Chandrahas, Choudhary, Teja, Venkataramayya, and Prasad (2022)) 152 Yes NA P Ensemble 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAPE Single

MFO-SVM (Chen, Armaghani, et al. (2022)) 76 No NA P Hybrid RMSE, 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE. VAF Ranking
ANFIS-SFS (Ye, Dalle, Nezami, Hasanipanah, and Armaghani (2020)) 62 Yes Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, MAPE Single
BIENN (Temeng, Ziggah, and Arthur (2021)) 324 No Yes P Hybrid RMSE, MAPE, NRMSE, R, VAF Single
CFNN (Zeng, Jamei, Nait Amar, Hasanipanah, and Bayat (2022)) 62 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, AARE Single
GA-ANFIS (Harandizadeh and Armaghani (2021)) 62 No Yes P Hybrid R, MSE, RMSE, Error Mean, Error StD Single
XGBoost (He et al. (2021)) 62 No NA P Ensemble R, MAE Single
GLMNETs-MLPNN (Nguyen, Bui, and Tran (2021)) 180 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Single
ANN (Zhou, Armaghani, et al. (2021)) 62 Yes Yes P Individual RMSE, 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, MAE, a20-index Ranking
GP (Ramesh Murlidhar et al. (2021)) 125 Yes Yes P Individual RMSE, 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Ranking
Environmental Safety (Air OverPressure)

GA-GMDH (Gao, Alqahtani, Mubarakali, Mavaluru, et al. (2020)) 84 Yes NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, MAE, a20-index Single
ANN (Bui, Nguyen, et al. (2020)) 113 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Single
GA-CA (Fang, Nguyen, Bui, and Tran (2020)) 164 No NA P Hybrid RMSE, 𝑅2 , MAE, VAF, MAPE Ranking
ANN (Nguyen, Bui, Bui, and Mai (2020)) 146 Yes NA P Individual RMSE, 𝑅2 Ranking
CA (Nguyen, Bui, Tran, et al. (2020)) 146 Yes NA P Individual RMSE, 𝑅2 , MAE Single
GA-BSS (Nguyen and Bui (2020)) 121 Yes Yes P Hybrid RMSE, 𝑅2 , VAF Single
FIS-FA (Zhou, Nekouie, Arslan, Pham, and Hasanipanah (2020)) 86 No Yes P Hybrid RMSE, 𝑅2 , VAF Single
ANN-RF (Nguyen and Bui (2019)) 114 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Ranking
GA-ANN (Jahed Armaghani et al. (2018)) 97 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Single
GEP (Faradonbeh, Hasanipanah, Amnieh, Armaghani, and Monjezi (2018)) 92 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Single
PSO (AminShokravi, Eskandar, Derakhsh, Rad, and Ghanadi (2018)) 80 Yes Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , MSE, VAF, MABE Single
PSO-SVM (Hasanipanah, Shahnazar, Bakhshandeh Amnieh, and Jahed Armaghani (2017)) 83 No Yes P Hybrid R, RMSE Single
ICA-ANN (Jahed Armaghani, Hasanipanah, and Tonnizam Mohamad (2016)) 70 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Ranking
GA-ANN (Tonnizam Mohamad, Jahed Armaghani, Hasanipanah, Murlidhar, and Alel (2016)) 76 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , VAF, RMSE Ranking
ANFIS (Hasanipanah, Jahed Armaghani, Khamesi, Bakhshandeh Amnieh, and Ghoraba (2016)) 77 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Ranking
ANFIS (Jahed Armaghani, Hajihassani, Sohaei, et al. (2015)) 128 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Single
ICA-ANN (Jahed Armaghani, Hajihassani, Marto, Shirani Faradonbeh, and Mohamad (2015)) 95 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
PSO-ANN (Hajihassani, Armaghani, Sohaei, Mohamad, and Marto (2014)) 62 Yes Yes P Hybrid R, MSE Single
SVM (Khandelwal and Kankar (2011)) 75 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , MAPE Single
BIENN (Temeng, Ziggah, and Arthur (2020)) 171 No Yes P Hybrid R, RMSE, MAPE, NRMSE, VAF, PI Single
CWNN (Hosseini, Poormirzaee, and Hajihassani (2022)) 90 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, Accuracy indices Single
ANN (Ziggah et al. (2023)) 324 No Yes P Individual RMSE, SI, R, CRM, U95, BIC Single
RBFN (Zhang et al. (2022)) 76 No Yes P Individual RMSE, MAPE, R Single
SVM-GO (Chen, Asteris, et al. (2022)) 62 Yes Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, MAPE Single

(continued on next page)

Goutte, 1999). Typically, researchers use a two-way split of the data, Six studies reported a three-way split introducing a validation set
consisting of a training set and a test set. Out of 208 studies, 90% where 10% to 20% of the data is allocated (Azimi et al., 2019; Babaeian
(188) specified their data split strategies for model development and et al., 2023; Guo, Nguyen, et al., 2021; Ohadi et al., 2020; Trivedi et al.,
validation. The most common strategy was the two-way split, with 182 2015; Yari et al., 2016). The validation set serves for hyperparameter
studies adopting various ratios for the split: tuning and acts as an unbiased evaluation of the model’s fit on the
training data (Azimi et al., 2019). To further address the challenges of
overfitting or underfitting, researchers have adopted cross-validation
• 90%–10% (13 studies)
techniques. Typically k-fold cross-validation is used to divide the data
• 85%–25% (7 studies) into ‘k’ subsets and iteratively train the model on ‘k-1’ subsets while
• 80%–20% (124 studies) testing it on the remaining subset. This process is repeated ‘k’ times,
• 75%–25% (9 studies) and the results are averaged to provide a robust estimate of model
• 70%–30% (28 studies) performance (Barkhordari et al., 2022; Chen, Armaghani, et al., 2022;
• 60%–40% (1 study) Li, Yang, et al., 2021; Nguyen & Bui, 2020; Nguyen, Bui, Bui, & Mai,

8
V. Munagala et al. Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517

Table 3 (continued).
Model (Study) Dataset U. factor/s Preproc. Model development Model evaluation
size applied
Focus Approach Metrics Strategy

CWNN (Hosseini, Poormirzaee, Hajihassani, and Kalatehjari (2022)) 416 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Ranking
DNN (Barkhordari, Armaghani, and Fakharian (2022)) 262 No NA P Ensemble MSE, 𝑅2 , COV, a20-index Ranking
GEP (Monjezi, Dehghani, Shakeri, and Mehrdanesh (2021)) 152 No NA P Individual 2
𝑅 , RMSE Single
FA-ANN (Li, Koopialipoor, and Armaghani (2021)) 113 No NA P Hybrid 2
𝑅 , RMSE Ranking
HHO-ANN (Murlidhar et al. (2021)) 152 Yes Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAPE, VAF, RSE, a10-index Single
ELM (Jamei, Hasanipanah, Karbasi, Ahmadianfar, and Taherifar (2021)) 73 No Yes P Individual R, RMSE, MAPE, U1, U2 Ranking
WO-SVM (Nguyen, Bui, Choi, Lee, and Armaghani (2021)) 210 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
GEP-CO (Dehghani, Pourzafar, et al. (2021)) 318 No Yes O Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
SVM-GLMNET (Guo, Nguyen, et al. (2021)) l 210 No NA O Ensemble/Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAPE, MAE, VAF Ranking
DNN-WO (Guo, Zhou, Koopialipoor, Jahed Armaghani, and Tahir (2021)) 240 No Yes O Hybrid 2
𝑅 , RMSE Ranking
GP-MCS (Ye, Koopialipoor, Zhou, Armaghani, and He (2021)) 262 No NA O Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Ranking
GP-RFNN (Nikafshan Rad, Bakhshayeshi, Wan Jusoh, Tahir, and Foong (2020)) 70 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
BO-ELM (Murlidhar et al. (2020)) 262 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , MAE, NSE, Cp, RMSE Ranking
ANN-ADHS (Hasanipanah, Keshtegar, Thai, and Troung (2020)) 82 Yes NA P Hybrid 2
𝑅 , RMSE, MAE, NSE, d Single
SVM-GWO (Armaghani, Koopialipoor, Bahri, Hasanipanah, and Tahir (2020)) 262 No NA O Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
Environmental Safety (Flyrock)

ANN-MCS (Zhou, Aghili, et al. (2020)) 260 No NA O Individual 2

𝑅 , RMSE Ranking
BNN (Han et al. (2020)) 262 No Yes P Individual Cumulative Gain Single
ANN-PSO (Zhou, Koopialipoor, et al. (2020)) 65 No NA O Hybrid 𝑅2 Single
PSO-ANN (Koopialipoor, Fallah, Armaghani, Azizi, and Mohamad (2019)) 262 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE Ranking
ANN (Nguyen, Bui, Nguyen-Thoi, Ragam, and Moayedi (2019)) 201 No Yes P Ensemble 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, MAPE, MAE Ranking
SVM (Rad, Hasanipanah, Rezaei, and Eghlim (2018)) 90 Yes NA P Individual 2
𝑅 , MSE, VAF, MABE Single
GEP-FA (Faradonbeh, Armaghani, et al. (2018)) 76 No Yes O Hybrid 𝑅2 , VAF, RMSE Single
PSO (Hasanipanah, Jahed Armaghani, Bakhshandeh Amnieh, Majid, and Tahir (2017)) 76 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, NS Single
RT (Hasanipanah, Faradonbeh, Armaghani, Amnieh, and Khandelwal (2017)) 65 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , MAE, MEDAE Single
ANN (Yari, Bagherpour, Jamali, and Shamsi (2016)) 334 Yes Yes P Individual R, RMSE Single
GP (Faradonbeh, Jahed Armaghani, and Monjezi (2016)) 262 No NA P Individual 2
𝑅 , RMSE, VAF Ranking
GEP (Faradonbeh, Armaghani, Monjezi, and Mohamad (2016)) 97 No NA P Individual 2
𝑅 , RMSE, VAF, MAE Single
ANFIS (Trivedi, Singh, and Gupta (2015)) 125 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Single
ICA-ANN (Marto, Hajihassani, Jahed Armaghani, Tonnizam Mohamad, and Makhtar (2014)) 113 Yes NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Single
ANFIS (Ghasemi, Amini, Ataei, and Khalokakaei (2014)) 230 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, MAPE Single
ANN (Monjezi, Mehrdanesh, Malek, and Khandelwal (2013)) 310 Yes NA P Individual RMSE, VAF, 𝑅2 , MAE, Er Single
SVM (Amini, Gholami, Monjezi, Torabi, and Zadhesh (2012)) 245 No Yes P Individual R, RMSE Single
ANN (Monjezi, Bahrami, Varjani, and Sayadi (2011)) 213 Yes NA P Individual 2
𝑅 , RMSE, MAE, Er Single
AdaBoost (Yari, Armaghani, et al. (2023)) 234 No NA P Ensemble 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, a10-index Single
ANFIS (Hudaverdi (2022)) 109 Yes Yes P Individual R, MAE, MAPE, NSE Single
EO-ELM (Bhatawdekar et al. (2023)) 114 Yes NA P Hybrid 2
𝑅 , RMSE, MAPE, NSE, VAF, a20-index Single
GA-ANN (Babaeian et al. (2023)) 118 Yes Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, MAPE Single
HLO-SVM (Huang and Xue (2022)) 240 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MSE, MAE Single
JSO-ANN (Wang, Hosseini, Jahed Armaghani, and Tonnizam Mohamad (2023)) 65 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Single
SVM-WO (Ding, Jamei, Hasanipanah, Abdullah, and Le (2023)) 80 Yes Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, AARE Single

RVM-HPSOGWO (Yu, Shi, Zhou, Gou, et al. (2020)) 117&50a Yes Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Ranking
PSO-ANN (Peng et al. (2021)) 93 Yes Yes P Hybrid R, RMSE, VAF, a20-inex Ranking
FA-SVM (Ding, Hasanipanah, Nikafshan Rad, and Zhou (2021)) 87 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, SMAPE, LM, VAF Single
CO-ANN (Bui, Nguyen, Tran, Nguyen, and Bui (2021)) 118 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, VAF, a20-index Single
AENN-SVM (Ke, Nguyen, Bui, and Costache (2021)) 297 Yes Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
SVM (Zeng et al. (2021)) 166 No Yes P Individual R, MAE, Gain Ranking
PSO-CRANFIS (Zhu, Rad, and Hasanipanah (2021)) 84 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, MAPE, VAF Ranking
GO-ELM (Yu, Koopialipoor, et al. (2021)) 166 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, MAPE, NSE Single
FA-SVM (Chen, Hasanipanah, Nikafshan Rad, Jahed Armaghani, and Tahir (2021)) 95 Yes NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, WI, MAE Single
JA-XGBoost (Zhou, Qiu, Khandelwal, Zhu, and Zhang (2021)) 150 Yes Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, VAF Ranking
WO-XGBoost (Qiu et al. (2021)) 150 Yes NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , VAF, RMSE, MAE Ranking
PSO-ELM (Jahed Armaghani, Kumar, Samui, Hasanipanah, and Roy (2021)) 102 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, NSE, MAE, Cp Single
GWO-RVM (Fattahi and Hasanipanah (2021)) 95 No Yes P Hybrid R, MSE, MAPE, VAF Single
ANN (Lawal, Kwon, Hammed, and Idris (2021)) 100 Yes Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 Single
HHO-DNN (Nguyen, Bui, Tran, Nguyen, et al. (2021)) 229 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAPE, VAF Single
Environmental Safety (Ground Vibration)

GEP-MCS (Zhou, Li, Koopialipoor, Jahed Armaghani, and Thai Pham (2021)) 102 No NA O Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, VAF Single
GEP-GO (Bayat et al. (2022)) 151 No Yes O Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, RMSER, MAE Single
GA-ANFIS (Yang, Hasanipanah, Tahir, and Bui (2020)) 86 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, MAPE, MAE Single
IM-ANN (Amiri, Hasanipanah, and Bakhshandeh Amnieh (2020)) 92 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, MAPE Single
GMDH-NN (Mohammadi, Mikaeil, and Abdollahi-Sharif (2020)) 52 No NA C Individual Accuracy, Error, Recall, F1 Score Ranking
ICA-XGBoost (Ding, Nguyen, Bui, Zhou, and Moayedi (2020)) 136 No NA P Ensemble/Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Ranking
RF (Zhang, Zhou, et al. (2020)) 102 No Yes P Individual VAF, RMSE, 𝑅2 , MAE, a20-index Ranking
HKM-SVM (Nguyen, Drebenstedt, Bui, and Bui (2020)) 185 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Single
FA-SVM (Yang, Nikafshan Rad, et al. (2020)) 90 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Single
GA-SVM (Nguyen, Choi, et al. (2019)) 125 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Ranking
FCM-QRNN (Bui, Choi, et al. (2020)) 83 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Single
ANN-FA (Bayat et al. (2020)) 151 No Yes O Hybrid VAF, RMSE, 𝑅2 , MAE, a20-index Single
ANN-ICA (Rezaeineshat et al. (2020)) 112 Yes Yes O Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Single
RF (Zhou, Asteris, et al. (2020)) 102 No Yes C Individual Accuracy Single
HHO-RF-MCS (Yu, Shi, Zhou, Chen, and Qiu (2020)) 117 Yes Yes O Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Single
GEP-MCS (Mahdiyar et al. (2020)) 149 No NA O Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE Ranking
PSO-KNN (Bui, Jaroonpattanapong, Nguyen, Tran, and Long (2019)) 152 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Single
ANN (Nguyen, Bui, and Moayedi (2019)) 68 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Single
BGAM (Nguyen, Bui, Tran, and Moayedi (2019)) 79 No Yes P Ensemble 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Single
CA-HKM (Nguyen, Bui, Tran, and Mai (2019)) 136 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Single
XGBoost (Nguyen, Bui, Bui, and Cuong (2019)) 146 No Yes P Ensemble 𝑅2 , RMSE Ranking
GA-ANN (Azimi, Khoshrou, and Osanloo (2019)) 70 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
ELM (Zhongya and Xiaoguang (2018)) 108 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 Single
ICA (Behzadafshar, Mohebbi, Tehrani, Hasanipanah, and Tabrizi (2018)) 76 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , MBE, MAPE, RMSE, VAF Single
CART (Hasanipanah, Faradonbeh, Amnieh, Armaghani, and Monjezi (2017)) 86 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, NS Ranking
CO (Fouladgar, Hasanipanah, and Bakhshandeh Amnieh (2017)) 85 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
PSO (Hasanipanah, Naderi, Kashir, Noorani, and Zeynali Aaq Qaleh (2017)) 80 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VARE, NS Single
CART (Khandelwal et al. (2017)) 51 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Single
ABC-ANN (Taheri, Hasanipanah, Golzar, and Majid (2017)) 89 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAPE Single

(continued on next page)

9
V. Munagala et al. Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517

Table 3 (continued).
Model (Study) Dataset U. factor/s Preproc. Model development Model evaluation
size applied
Focus Approach Metrics Strategy

GEP-CO (Faradonbeh and Monjezi (2017)) 115 No NA O Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Single
GEP (Shirani Faradonbeh, Jahed Armaghani, et al. (2016)) 102 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, MAE Single
GEP 35 Yes NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Single
(Monjezi, Baghestani, Shirani Faradonbeh, Pourghasemi Saghand, and Jahed Armaghani (2016))
ICA-ANN (Hajihassani, Jahed Armaghani, Marto, and Tonnizam Mohamad (2015)) 95 Yes NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
ANFIS (Armaghani, Momeni, Abad, and Khandelwal (2015)) 109 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Single
SVM (Hasanipanah, Monjezi, Shahnazar, Armaghani, and Farazmand (2015)) 80 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, NSE, VARE, MAPE, MEDAE Single
Environmental Safety (Ground Vibration)

FIS (Ghasemi, Ataei, and Hashemolhosseini (2013)) 120 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , VAF, RMSE, MAPE Single
ANN (Görgülü et al. (2013)) 36 Yes NA P Individual 𝑅2 Single
SVM (Longjun, Xibing, Ming, and Qiyue (2011)) 108 Yes NA P Individual Error ratio Single
SVM (Khandelwal (2011)) 150 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , MAE Single
ANN (Mohamed (2009)) 149 Yes NA P Individual 𝑅2 , MSE Single
ANN (Khandelwal and Singh (2009)) 174 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , MAE Single
ANN (Singh and Singh (2005)) 215 No NA P Individual 𝑅 2 Single
FA-ANN (Shang, Nguyen, Bui, Tran, and Moayedi (2020)) 83 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, VAF Ranking
ICA (Armaghani, Hasanipanah, Amnieh, and Mohamad (2018)) 73 No Yes P Individual 2
𝑅 , RMSE Single
ANN (Jain, Agrawal, and Choudhary (2022)) 56 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
BNN (Fissha, Ikeda, Toriya, Adachi, and Kawamura (2023)) 100 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, MSE Single
MARS (Komadja et al. (2022)) 1001 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
SSO-ELM (Nguyen, Bui, and Topal (2023b)) 216 Yes Yes P Hybrid 2
𝑅 , RMSE, MAE Single
RF-GBM (Kadingdi et al. (2022)) 196 No Yes P Ensemble/Hybrid 2
𝑅 , RMSE, MAE Single
XGBoost (Hosseini, Pourmirzaee, Armaghani, and Sabri Sabri (2023)) 130 No Yes P Ensemble 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, VAF, Accuracy Single
GPR (Arthur et al. (2022)) 101 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , R, VAF, MSE Single
SVM (Temeng, Arthur, and Ziggah (2022)) 201 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, MSE, Elg Single
RF-GA-ANN (Guo, Yang, Wang, and Xiang (2022)) 154 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, Er Single
RSM-SVM (Keshtegar et al. (2023)) 90 Yes NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, NSE, AI Single
MRFO-SONN (Nguyen, Bui, and Topal (2023a)) 288 Yes Yes P Hybrid 2
𝑅 , RMSE, MAE, MAPE Single
XGBoost (Chandrahas et al. (2022)) 152 Yes NA P Ensemble 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAPE Single
GP (Kumar, Mishra, and Choudhary (2023)) 140 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 Single

RF (Kumar et al. (2022)) 140 Yes NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE Single

PSO-RF (Dai et al. (2022)) 234 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, MAPE Ranking
GP (Sharma, Agrawal, and Choudhary (2022)) 84 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAPE, MMRE Single
FIS-ICA (Hasanipanah and Bakhshandeh Amnieh (2021) 62 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, MAPE, MAE Single
MFO-SVM (Yu, Monjezi, et al. (2021)) 85 Yes NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, MAE Ranking
SCA-RF (Zhou, Dai, et al. (2021)) 234 No NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Ranking
PSO (Eskandar, Heydari, Hasanipanah, Masir, and Derakhsh (2018)) 84 Yes Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
Rock Related

PSO-ANFIS (Hasanipanah, Shahnazar, Arab, Golzar, and Amir (2017)) 80 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE Single
PSO (Ghasemi (2017)) 175 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Ranking
GP (Shirani Faradonbeh, Monjezi, and Jahed Armaghani (2016)) 175 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Single
ANFIS (Ghasemi, Amnieh, and Bagherpour (2016)) 175 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF, MAPE Single
ANFIS (Esmaeili, Osanloo, Rashidinejad, Aghajani Bazzazi, and Taji (2014)) 42 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAPE Single
SVM (Mohammadnejad, Gholami, Sereshki, and Jamshidi (2013)) 135 No NA P Individual R, RMSE Single
ANN (Monjezi, Ahmadi, Varjani, and Khandelwal (2013)) 97 Yes NA P Individual 𝑅2 , VAF, MSE Single
SVM (Khandelwal and Monjezi (2013)) 234 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , MAE Single
ANN (Monjezi and Dehghani (2008)) 300 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
ANN-ICA (Sadeghi, Monjezi, and Jahed Armaghani (2020)) 100 No Yes O Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Single
RF (Sharma, Choudhary, and Agrawal (2022)) 100 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE Single
GP (Kumar et al. (2023)) 140 Yes NA P Individual 𝑅2 Single

ANN-ICA (Zangoei, Monjezi, Armaghani, Mehrdanesh, and Ahmadian (2022)) 172 Yes Yes O Hybrid 𝑅2 , RSME, VAF, MAE Single
ANN (Gorai, Himanshu, and Santi (2021)) 101 No Yes P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, MSE, FB Single
RF (Ohadi et al. (2020)) 451 Yes Yes P Individual MAE, MSE Single
ANN-FA (Asl, Monjezi, Hamidi, and Armaghani (2018)) 200 Yes NA O Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, Er Single
Multiobjective

ANN-KNN (Amiri, Bakhshandeh Amnieh, Hasanipanah, and Mohammad Khanli (2016)) 75 No Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Yes
ANN-ABC (Ebrahimi, Monjezi, Khalesi, and Armaghani (2016)) 34 No Yes O Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, VAF Single
ANN-ACO (Saghatforoush, Monjezi, Shirani Faradonbeh, and Jahed Armaghani (2016)) 97 No Yes O Hybrid 𝑅2 , RMSE, Ea Single
PSO-ANN (Hajihassani, Jahed Armaghani, Monjezi, Mohamad, and Marto (2015)) 88 Yes Yes P Hybrid 𝑅2 , MSE Single
PSO-ANN (Armaghani, Hajihassani, Mohamad, Marto, and Noorani (2014)) 44 Yes NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , MSE, Error Single
ANN (Sayadi, Monjezi, Talebi, and Khandelwal (2013)) 103 No NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, MRE, VAF Single
GA-ANN (Monjezi, Khoshalan, and Varjani (2011)) 195 Yes NA P Hybrid 𝑅2 , MSE, NMSE Single
ANN-GA (Monjezi, Amini Khoshalan, and Yazdian Varjani (2012)) 234 No Yes O Hybrid 𝑅2 Single
ANN (Monjezi, Bahrami, and Varjani (2010)) 250 Yes NA P Individual 𝑅2 , RMSE, MAE, Er Single

‘‘NA’’: Not Available; ‘‘P’’: Prediction; ‘‘O’’: Optimization; ‘‘C’’: Classification.

a The publication has provided two independent case studies using the same ML model.

2020; Nguyen, Bui, Choi, et al., 2021; Nguyen, Bui, & Tran, 2021; it can increase bias resulting in underfitting where the model does
Nguyen, Bui, Tran, & Moayedi, 2019; Nguyen, Bui, Tran, et al., 2020; not learn enough from the training data to make accurate predictions.
Ohadi et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2021; Yu, Shi, et al., Balancing these aspects is critical for the reliability and effectiveness of
2021; Yu, Shi, Zhou, Gou, et al., 2020). Other strategies reported in the the model (Arlot & Celisse, 2010; Kohavi et al., 1995; Larsen & Goutte,
literature include leave-one-out cross-validation (Amini et al., 2012), 1999; Xu & Goodacre, 2018).
which can be viewed as k-fold with ‘k’ equal to the total number of Our evaluation reveals that the choice of ‘k’ in k-fold
data points, the holdout method (Arthur et al., 2022; Temeng et al., cross-validation often appears arbitrary, where researchers are not
2022), which is essentially a simple train/test split, and generalized providing a rationale for their choice. Furthermore, our review did not
cross-validation, which uses a particular formula to compute the error identify a trend between the chosen data split strategy and the reported
estimate (Komadja et al., 2022). performance of the models. This suggests that other factors play a larger
Choosing the right split ratio is crucial in a simple train–test split or role in determining model performance, such as model architecture or
when selecting the ‘k’ value for k-fold cross-validation. A training set the specific characteristics of the dataset.
larger than the test set or a smaller ‘k’ value implies that the model has
more data to learn from. Despite reducing bias, this method can lead to 6.2. Model development
overfitting, where the model becomes too tailored to the training data
and performs poorly on unseen data. On the contrary, a larger test set Researchers have experimented with various methods and tech-
or a larger ‘k’ value might decrease the risk of overfitting. However, niques in developing ML models for blast design optimization. We

10
V. Munagala et al.
Fig. 7. Year-wise distribution of studies by model category (Hybrid/Single).
identify prediction and optimization as the main focuses of these mod-
els. Different ML models have been developed based on individual
and hybrid approaches (Xie et al., 2021; Zhang, Zhou, et al., 2020).
The choice of approach depends on the specific problem and avail-
able dataset. For simple problems where a single model is sufficient
to capture the patterns in the data, an individual approach is em-
ployed (Nguyen, Bui, & Moayedi, 2019). For complex problems where a
single model may not capture all the necessary patterns or relationships
in the data, a hybrid approach is chosen (Li, Yang, et al., 2021).
6.2.1. Model development focus
The areas of interest include prediction, optimization, and classifi-
cation. However, the majority of studies focused on the former two.
Only two studies (Mohammadi et al., 2020; Zhou, Asteris, et al., 2020)
used classification techniques specifically to classify ground vibration
into different ranges.
Prediction. Predictive modeling is a technique used by ML models to
learn (i) relations in variables and (ii) hidden patterns from historical
data, and (iii) predict the outcome/s of unseen data. This modeling
technique is common across the literature and is applied to predict
single-blast or multiple-blast objectives.
Optimization. In addition to prediction, some researchers have ex-
tended their ML models to optimize the input parameters for improved
blast designs. This process is done in two stages. Firstly, a base model
is created and then used to develop a second model via a hybrid
approach. For example, Bayat et al. (2022) developed a gene expression
programming model to predict ground vibration with a high level of
accuracy and used this as an objective function for the grasshopper
optimization algorithm to optimize the input blast parameters.
6.2.2. Model development approach
The application of ML models in drilling and blasting has seen a
balanced exploration between individual and hybrid approaches, with
50% (104) of the studies adopting each method. Our analysis of the
literature reveals that in the early years, there was a greater focus
on individual models with less exploration of hybrid models. This
trend is illustrated in Fig. 7, where the bar chart shows the year-wise
distribution of hybrid and single models. The focus on hybrid models
began in 2011, with a pronounced shift occurring in 2020, surpassing
individual models in the percentage of studies conducted. This suggests
a growing preference for hybrid approaches.
The line chart in Fig. 8 further reinforces this analysis by showing
the cumulative percentage of studies dedicated to both hybrid and
single models across the years. The year 2018 marks a turning point
for individual model studies, with 50% of the studies conducted before
this year. Conversely, the year 2020 stands out as a milestone for the
hybrid model studies by which half of the studies had been conducted
by this point. The sharp rise in the cumulative percentage of hybrid
model studies since 2020 further emphasizes the increasing interest in
multifaceted ML models during recent years.
11
Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517
Together, both charts in Figs. 7 and 8 provide a detailed view of the
evolution in research paradigms in the field of drilling and blasting,
showcasing a shift from individual models to hybrid models. These
trends reveal a broader diversification in research approaches and a
willingness to explore complex, integrative ML modeling techniques
for drilling and blasting. The following sections will delve into the
specific trends, characteristics, and popular models within individual
and hybrid development approaches.
Individual approach. For individual model development, a single ML
model is developed to predict outcome/s. Researchers have used indi-
vidual models to predict single (Mehrdanesh et al., 2021) and multiple
blast objectives (Gorai et al., 2021). These models are trained on his-
torical drill and blast design data, enabling them to learn relationships
and patterns within the data and use the relationship learned to predict
the blast outcome/s for unseen drill and blast designs. A variety of
ML models have been developed where the choice of model depends
on various factors, including the complexity of data, the specific blast
objectives, and the computational resources available. These models
can be categorized into heuristic and metaheuristic algorithms accord-
ing to their core learning strategy. Heuristics are problem-dependent
strategies, meaning they are tailored to the specific problem at hand.
Metaheuristics are problem-independent strategies that can be adapted
to a range of different problems (Abdel-Basset, Abdel-Fatah, & Sanga-
iah, 2018; Desale, Rasool, Andhale, & Rane, 2015), such as evolutionary
algorithms.
Hybrid approach. The hybrid approach aims to enhance the accuracy
of predictions or optimizations by combining two ML models, which
could either be similar or different (Armaghani et al., 2020; Fang
et al., 2021). By leveraging the strengths and compensating for the
weaknesses of each model, a hybrid approach leads to improved overall
model performance. For instance, while one model might be proficient
at capturing linear relationships, another might excel at detecting non-
linear relationships. By combining these models, the resulting hybrid
model can capture both types of relationships in the data to enhance
prediction accuracy (Hasanipanah et al., 2018). This hybrid approach
can be achieved by combining: (1) two heuristic models (Nguyen & Bui,
2019), (2) two metaheuristic models (Zhou, Koopialipoor, et al., 2020), or
(3) a heuristic and a metaheuristic model (Sayevand et al., 2018). In each
case, hybridization is realized either by optimizing the hyperparameters
of one model (referred to as the base model) using another ML model
or by developing a base model and using it as an objective function of
another ML model.
For example, Bui et al. (2021) achieved hybridization by opti-
mizing the weights and biases of artificial neural networks using a
cuckoo search optimizer. Whereas, Rezaeineshat et al. (2020) achieved
hybridization by developing an artificial neural network model for
predicting blast-induced ground vibration and then using this model
as an objective function for an imperialist competitive algorithm to
optimize blast parameters.
V. Munagala et al.
Fig. 8. Cumulative percentage of studies for hybrid and single models.
Fig. 9. Word cloud of ML models across literature.
The hybrid approach provides a strategy for improving prediction
accuracy; however, it is not the only method that combines multiple ML
models. An ensemble approach involves combining multiple models to
achieve higher accuracy compared to their individual performances (He
et al., 2021). Despite both methods combining different ML models, hy-
brid and ensemble approaches differ in the way they handle the outputs
of their individual models. Firstly, an ensemble approach aggregates
the outputs of the individual models known as base learners, while a
hybrid approach uses the output from a single model as input to the
other model. Secondly, the base learners in ensembles are trained on
unique data subsets from the original dataset, while hybrid models use
a single dataset to train their individual models.
The word cloud in Fig. 9 presents the central theme of surveyed
ML models, emphasizing their versatility and widespread application in
drilling and blasting. It illustrates a preference for neural networks, sup-
port vector machines, and genetic algorithms, due to their robustness
in handling optimization problems. Furthermore, to tackle the dynamic
challenges inherent in the field of drilling and blasting, metaheuristic
algorithms were adapted for hybridization model development, such as
particle swarm, firefly and whale optimization algorithms.
6.3. Evaluation
A range of evaluation metrics is used based on the task the model
performs (the model type), for example, if it is a regression or classifica-
tion model. We identified 40 distinct evaluation metrics for measuring
the regression model’s performance. The most common were coefficient
of determination (𝑅2 ), root mean square error, variance account for,
and mean absolute error. The two studies that used classification mod-
els used accuracy to evaluate model performance (Mohammadi et al.,
2020; Zhou, Asteris, et al., 2020). After evaluating model performance,
researchers used one of two main methods to compare the performance
of different models. The most common is the single metric evaluation
12
Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517
(78% studies) that uses a single metric to compare the model’s per-
formance against a different model on the same dataset (Bui et al.,
2021; Gorai et al., 2021; Monjezi et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2021; Zeng
et al., 2022). The least common is the ranking system (22% studies)
that assigns relative ranks to each model based on its performance
across multiple metrics (Barkhordari et al., 2022; Chen, Armaghani,
et al., 2022; Yu, Shi, Zhou, Gou, et al., 2020; Yu, Shi, Zhou, et al.,
2021). This approach recognizes that a single metric may not capture
all the essential characteristics of a model’s performance, enabling a
comprehensive evaluation strategy.
7. Discussion
Research into optimizing drill and blast design parameters is cat-
egorized based on their objectives to maximize or minimize specific
outcomes. We identified three main categories of studies during our lit-
erature review with the objectives of: (i) production, (ii) environmental
safety, and (iii) rock stability. The first category focuses on maximizing
production from the drilling and blasting phase to generate revenue
for mines. Rock fragmentation size and throw distance are important
parameters in determining the operational costs of mining and are di-
rectly associated with mineral production and reducing ore loss during
blasting. The second category aims to minimize adverse environmental
impacts such as ground vibration, flyrock, and air overpressure. These
outcomes are considered undesirable as they have a negative impact on
the environment and human safety. These outcomes have a threshold
limit that is dependent on the site conditions and is set based on factors
beyond the mine engineer’s control. The final category includes studies
related to rock stability, such as backbreak and toe formation. These
are also considered undesirable as they can impact the operational
procedure/s and costs of the subsequent blasting operation.
The three objectives are site-specific. In cases where mines are close
to a habitat, there needs to be a balance between the three objectives.
V. Munagala et al. Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517

Table 4
Issues found in various stages of ML model development and our recommendations for future research.
Stage Issues
Data preprocessing - Availability of limited real-world data
- Data considered for model development is not
representative of the actual drill and blast design
- Feature selection is at author’s discretion
- Exclusion of geological parameters
- Ambiguity in the choice of preprocessing methods
Model selection & training - Model selection ambiguity as many models have
the same level of prediction accuracy
- Lack of adequate focus on multiobjective studies
- Focus is on prediction, not input optimization
Evaluation - Lack of quantitative method to evaluate the
performance against all three objectives
- Absence of testing in the real-world setting
Recommendation
- Developing a data schema for consistent and
accurate data collection and curation
- An approach to collect and integrate
uncontrollable factors (geological parameters) with
drill and blast design data
- A data pipeline for streamlining and automating
data preprocessing
- Focus on multiobjective models with an aim to
optimize the input feature values
- ML pipeline for systematically comparing and
selecting the best ML model that can satisfy the
constraints in the case of multiobjective models
- Developing a weighted mathematical model for
comprehensive evaluation of drilling and blasting
outcomes

However, sites that are isolated can work on trade-offs between the
three objectives. Traditional methods rely on manual effort; thus, it
is not feasible to find a balance between the three objectives, and it
can be expensive and time-consuming to achieve multiple objectives
from a single drill and blast. As a result, no common method exists that
can be adapted across mines to achieve these objectives. Our analysis
of the current studies revealed that most authors focus on developing
ML models for drill and blast design optimization. However, we found
that many of these studies focus on a single objective, and only a small
number (6% of studies) have attempted to address multiple objectives.
In attaining these objectives, we identified several issues in the ML
model development process from the authors. While some of these
issues require changes in mine operating procedures, such as data
collection methods, others can be addressed through changes in the
ML model development workflow. Therefore, we conducted a compre-
hensive analysis of the current research to identify the challenges and
issues in developing ML models for drill and blast design optimization,
which we have presented in this section. Table 4 presents a summarized
view of the various stages in ML model development, the associated
issues, and our recommendations for future research. This overview
allows researchers to recognize and understand the issues in the current
literature and offers guidance for developing more robust and reliable
ML models for drilling and blasting applications.
7.1. Datasets
We have identified data collection as a major challenge in the field
of drilling and blasting. This challenge arises from the complexities of
gathering sufficient data, such as safety considerations, accessibility of
relevant sites, and the specialized nature of required information. 65%
(135 out of 208) studies have used datasets with 150 or fewer records
to train the ML models. This small sample size can impact the model’s
performance leading to overfitting or underfitting. This small dataset
problem can be alleviated (to an extent) by using techniques like
data augmentation, synthetic data generation, and transfer learning.
For example, Mohammadi et al. (2020), Monjezi, Mehrdanesh, et al.
(2013), Ghasemi (2017), and Mohammadnejad et al. (2013) have used
datasets collected from the Sungun copper mine; however, they differ in
size and features. It is worth noting that while Ghasemi (2017) and Mo-
hammadnejad et al. (2013) aims to predict backbreak, Mohammadi
et al. (2020) and Monjezi, Mehrdanesh, et al. (2013) focus on predicting
ground vibration and flyrock, respectively. Despite the difference in
prediction variables, both studies focus on optimizing the drill and
blast design. In this case, transfer learning can be an effective approach
for faster convergence and robust model development. Leveraging the
knowledge of a pre-trained model on one dataset and using it to
establish initial parameters for training the same model on a similar
but different dataset can overcome the problem of small datasets to
improve model performance.
In addition, data quality in research is critical. The data should be
reliable, accurate, and valid. However, despite researchers providing
information on the source of the data, there is a lack of information
on how the data was collected. Thus, the data accuracy and ML model
results are questionable. Drilling is a dynamic process where deviations
from the initial drilling plan can occur due to geological inconsistencies
or human error. These deviations can impact the performance of the
blast design. However, none of the literature has provided information
on any deviations or mentioned whether the data was collected before
or after drilling. This lack of information challenges the validity of
the data and highlights the need for more robust data collection and
validation methods in future studies. Documentation of data collection
methods and any deviations from the plan or implementation of a data
schema or a pipeline can ensure the validity and reliability of the data.
7.2. Data preparation
The inconsistency and ambiguity in data preprocessing across lit-
erature can lead to biased or inaccurate model parameters and poor
performance. We found that it is common practice for researchers not to
clarify the cleaning, transformation, and reduction techniques used and
found the selection criteria ambiguous. For example, Jahed Armaghani
et al. (2018) and Jahed Armaghani, Hajihassani, Marto, et al. (2015)
follow different approaches in handling outliers, despite being by the
same author. Zhou, Qiu, et al. (2021) has chosen multiple input factors
but failed to perform dimensionality reduction, resulting in the pres-
ence of highly correlated factors such as hole depth and charge length.
This can lead to overfitting and exaggerating the model’s performance.
To address these issues, a standardized data pipeline is needed to
streamline and automate data collection and preprocessing steps and
document the methods used in each step, ensuring that the data used
in future studies are reliable, valid, and representative of the problem.
Another challenge is data representation. We found that none of the
existing literature reported the blast record as an actual representation
of the drill and blast design. Researchers aggregated values of the
design parameters as input for ML model training. However, using
aggregate values of the data does not provide a complete and accurate
picture of the design. This aggregation may predict the objective; how-
ever, it does not assist in blast parameter optimization. A typical blast
involves multiple rows where each row has multiple holes. Parameters
such as spacing, burden, hole depth, explosive amount, and stemming
differ from hole to hole and row to row, resulting in multiple values
per parameter in a single blast design. We found that only 4% (8 out
of 208) of studies reported taking a mean or average value for these
parameters. The remaining 200 studies have not reported how they

13
V. Munagala et al.
handled this data, raising questions about the trust and accuracy of
their study results. To account for this variability, we recommend using
a database schema that captures the important data of a blast design.
7.3. Data leakage
Data leakage is a common problem in developing ML models. It
occurs when unwanted data is used in training the model. Kapoor and
Narayanan (2022) has defined data leakage as a spurious relationship
between the independent variables and the target variable that arises
as an artifact of the data collection, sampling, or preprocessing strategy
leading to inflated model performance estimates. Data leakage is intro-
duced in the ML model development lifecycle during the preprocessing
stage. A common cause for data leakage is performing imputation
or normalization before the data split, allowing the model to learn
not only from the training dataset but also from the test dataset.
This preprocessing leakage observed in several studies has resulted in
over-optimism of the model prediction performance (Ke et al., 2021;
Nguyen, Bui, Nguyen-Thoi, et al., 2019; Ramesh Murlidhar et al., 2021;
Zhang, Bui, et al., 2020). To minimize the data leakage issue, one
approach is to split the data into train, validate, and test datasets and
use cross-validation in the training process when the amount of data
available is limited. Another approach is to hold back a separate dataset
for validation to help perform a sanity check to identify the case of
overfitting. Insufficient information in study reports, coupled with the
issue of data leakage, can lead to concerns about reproducibility, where
the reliability and validity of the results are questionable.
7.4. Underspecification
The transformation of these studies into real-world applications
is limited due to underspecification. This term, as defined by Teney,
Peyrard, and Abbasnejad (2022), refers to the gap between the in-
formation provided in a dataset used for model development and the
information required to perform effectively on a task in a real-world set-
ting. Specifically, underspecification arises when the dataset used is not
representative of the target environment, making it challenging for the
model to learn the underlying patterns in the data and generalize well
to unseen data, resulting in poor out-of-sample performance (D’Amour
et al., 2022). In our analysis, we found that 63% (130 out of 208)
of the studies overlooked the variability of mine conditions, result-
ing in a mismatch between the study and deployment environments.
Consequently, despite the development of accurate models in these
studies, their application might not be reliable or easily generalizable to
different mine sites with varying geological conditions. This selection
bias is caused by relying on individual experience when choosing input
features and further affects the model’s credibility.
Addressing underspecification requires reducing the discrepancy
between the training environment and the deployment environment.
One approach uses a dataset for training and testing that accurately
reflects the potential heterogeneity of the mining conditions, leading to
models that are capable of handling the diverse scenarios encountered
in the real world. Another approach is to introduce inductive biases
into the training process (Mitchell, 1980a; Wolpert, 1996). Inductive
biases can come in various forms, including incorporating domain
knowledge into the model, taking into account site-specific constraints,
or using regularization techniques. This necessitates close collaboration
between data scientists and mine engineers to ensure that the models
are grounded in real-world knowledge and constraints. The inclusion of
domain knowledge and expert input can lead to more realistic model-
ing scenarios and improved generalizability of the models (Holzinger,
Biemann, Pattichis, & Kell, 2017; Mitchell, 1980b). By employing these
strategies, it is possible to bridge the gap between the information used
for training the model and the information required to make accurate
predictions or optimizations in a real-world setting.
14
Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517
7.5. Performance evaluation & real world application
In the mining industry, mine engineers evaluate drill and blast
design as a measure of the achievability of mine-specific goals such as
production or cost or environmental compliance, or a combination of
all three. Despite the critical importance of these objectives, a quan-
titative method for comprehensive evaluation of model performance
against all three objectives is lacking. Standard statistical metrics are
commonly used to measure model performance based on a particular
test dataset. Moreover, the high cost of drilling and blasting limits real-
world experiments. As previously noted, most studies have primarily
focused on building predictive models. Although these models can
assist in predicting the outcomes for a specific drill and blast design,
they rely on the mine engineer to input design values. To reduce this
reliance and to improve the practical application of ML models, there
is a need for more research to focus on multiobjective optimization
methods. This approach would provide mine engineers with the optimal
values for drill and blast design parameters, reducing the reliance on
human decision-making and paving the way for implementing auto-
mated technologies in the future. Although current evaluation methods
can demonstrate the potential of ML for real-world applications, there
is room for improvement by focusing on multiobjective optimization.
Multiobjective optimization can provide more comprehensive evalua-
tion and optimization solutions, making ML models even more useful
in practical settings.
8. Conclusion
Advances in technology have led to much attention in ML model
development in drilling and blasting. This review shows promising
outcomes from research in ML models to optimize the drill and blast
design. We begin with an introduction to the traditional methods of
developing drill and blast designs for rock blasting and its associated
complexities, followed by a detailed approach used by researchers to
develop and apply ML models in this context.
Drill and blast designs are influenced by controllable and uncon-
trollable factors. Data collection methods vary across these factors
and are currently manually collected, resulting in limited data avail-
ability. Studies identified in this survey used datasets with 100 or
fewer records. This highlights the challenges and opportunities for
ML model development. Traditionally, mine engineers relied on the
empirical evidence collected at a particular mine to develop drill and
blast designs. These methods are prone to error, unreliable, time-
intensive, and expensive. As a result, researchers are leveraging ML
models to find reliable and faster methods for developing optimal
drill and blast designs. However, a critical step in this process is data
preprocessing, including data cleaning and dimensionality reduction.
Our survey revealed that only 57% of the studies adequately addressed
data preparation, with a notable lack of attention to outlier removal
and dimensionality reduction, which are crucial for the accuracy and
reliability of ML models.
In this paper, we analyzed research conducted on ML models for
drill and blast design optimization between 2005 and 2022. To the best
of our knowledge, this is the first survey to provide a comprehensive
review and critical analysis of the ML model development process in
drilling and blasting. Our survey revealed that the primary focus of
the ML models was to predict drilling and blasting outcomes, such as
rock fragmentation, flyrock, ground vibration, or air overpressure. The
development of these models has shifted from individual approaches
to hybrid methods, aiming to predict outcomes from historical data
and optimize input parameters. The effectiveness of these models was
assessed based on the accuracy of their predictions for a specific drill
and blast design. This evaluation employed various metrics, the most
common being coefficient of determination (𝑅2 ), root mean square
error, and mean absolute error. Two main methods to compare model
V. Munagala et al. Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517

Table A.1
List of abbreviations.
Abbreviation Full Form Abbreviation Full Form
COV Coefficient of Variation FA Firefly Algorithm
NSE Nash and Sutcliffe statistic PSO Particle Swarm Optimizer
MABE Mean Absolute Bias Error WO Whale Optimizer
MEDAE Median Absolute Error ICA Imperialist Competitive Algorithm
𝑅2 Coefficient of Determination JSO Jellyfish Search Optimizer
RMSE Root Mean Square Error HHO Harris Hawks Optimizer
MAE Mean Absolute Error MFO Moth Flame Optimizer
MSE Mean Square Error ABC Artificial Bee Colony Optimizer
SS Skill Score EO Equilibrium Optimizer
PRMSE Predictive Root Mean Square Error BO Biogeography-based Optimizer
MAPE Mean Absolute Percentage Error HLO Human Learning Optimizer
SEP Standard Error of Prediction JA Jaya Algorithm
Er Mean Relative Error SSO Sparrow Search Optimizer
NRMSE Normalized Root Mean Square Error MRFO Manta Ray Foraging Optimizer
AARE Average Absolute Relative Error SFS Stochastic Fractal Search
RSE Root Squared Error ANN Artificial Neural Network
U1 Prediction Accuracy BIENN Brain-Inspired Emotional Neural Network
U2 Prediction Quality CFNN Cascaded Forward Neural Network
Cp Coefficient of Persistence CWNN Casualty Weighted Neural Network
d Modified Agreement Index DNN Deep Neural Network
SMAPE Systematic Mean Absolute Percentage Error RFNN Recurrent Fuzzy Neural Network
LM Leegate and McCabe Index BNN Bayesian Network Technique
WI Willmott’s Index of Agreement AENN Autoencoder Neural Network
RMSER Hybrid Performance Index QRNN Quantile Regression Neural Network
MBE Mean Average Error SONN Self-Organizing Neural Network
VARE Variance Absolute Relative Error GP Genetic Programming
SSE Sum of Squares Error GMDH Group Method of Data Handling
MMRE Mean Magnitude of Relative Error CA Cubist Algorithm
FB Fractional Bias BSS Boosted Smoothing Spline
PI Performance Index RF Random Forest
MRE Maximum Relative Error GA Genetic Algorithm
NMSE Normalized Mean Square Error GEP Gene Expression Programming
SI Scatter Index RBFN Radial Bias Function Network
CRM Coefficient of Residual Index SVM Support Vector Machine
U95 Uncertainty at 95% ELM Extreme Learning Machine
BIC Bayesian Information Criterion MCS Monte Carlo Simulation
Std_AE Standardized Absolute Error ADHS Adaptive Dynamical Harmony Search
Std_APE Standardized Absolute Percentage Error RVM Relevance Vector Machine
GBM Gradient Boosting Machine HPSOGWO Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization with Grey Wolf Optimizer
BGAM Boosted Generalized Additive Model CRANFIS Chaos Recurrent Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System
GWO Grey Wolf Optimizer IM Itemset Mining
GO Grasshopper Optimizer HKM Hierarchical k-Means Clustering
SVM Support Vector Machine FCM Fuzzy C-Means Clustering
CSO Cat Swarm Optimizer KNN k-Nearest Neighbors
CO Cuckoo Search Optimizer CART Classification and Regression Tree
ACO Ant Colony Optimizer MARS Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines
RT Regression Tree SCA Sine Cosine Algorithm
BRT Boosted Regression Tree RSM Response Surface Model
GPR Gaussian Process Regression
FIS Fuzzy Inference System
ANFIS Adaptive Neural Fuzzy Inference System

performance are single metric evaluation and the ranking system,
allowing for a more comprehensive evaluation.
In conclusion, our survey on ML models for drill and blast design
optimization shows that while the results of these studies are promising,
developing such models is still challenging due to the ambiguity in
ML methods and dynamic mine conditions. Key challenges include
data leakage, underspecification, and lack of comprehensive evaluation
methods. More research is needed to develop a structured and reusable
approach for comparing different models and selecting the best one for
specific site constraints. We recommend developing an ML pipeline to
facilitate this comparison and improve the reliability and efficiency of
drill and blast design optimization. Future research directions should
focus on bridging the gap between academic research and indus-
trial application, emphasizing the development of methodologies that
directly influence drill and blast parameters rather than mere predictive
models.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Venkat Munagala: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Visualiza-
tion. Srikanth Thudumu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing
– review & editing, Supervision. Irini Logothetis: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Sushil Bhan-
dari: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation. Rajesh Vasa: Con-
ceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
Kon Mouzakis: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review &
editing, Supervision.

15
V. Munagala et al.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data used in this article is publicly available.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported as part of the Higher Degree Research (HDR)
program at the Applied Artificial Intelligence Institute (𝐴2 𝐼 2 ), Deakin
University. We thank MineExcellence for their valuable Subject Matter
Expertise (SME) support.
Appendix. Abbreviations
See Table A.1.
References
Abbaspour, H., Drebenstedt, C., Badroddin, M., & Maghaminik, A. (2018). Optimized
design of drilling and blasting operations in open pit mines under technical and
economic uncertainties by system dynamic modelling. International Journal of Mining
Science and Technology, 28(6), 839–848.
Abd Elwahab, A., Topal, E., & Jang, H. D. (2023). Review of machine learning
application in mine blasting. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 16(2), 133.
Abdel-Basset, M., Abdel-Fatah, L., & Sangaiah, A. K. (2018). Metaheuristic algorithms:
A comprehensive review. Computational Intelligence for Multimedia Big Data on the
Cloud with Engineering Applications, 185–231.
Aggarwal, C. C., & Yu, P. S. (2001). Outlier detection for high dimensional data. In
Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data
(pp. 37–46).
Al-Bakri, A. Y., & Sazid, M. (2021). Application of artificial neural network (ANN) for
prediction and optimization of blast-induced impacts. Mining, 1(3), 315–334.
Ali, D., & Frimpong, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence, machine learning and process
automation: Existing knowledge frontier and way forward for mining sector.
Artificial Intelligence Review, 53(8), 6025–6042.
Amershi, S., Begel, A., Bird, C., DeLine, R., Gall, H., Kamar, E., et al. (2019). Software
engineering for machine learning: A case study. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st international
conference on software engineering: Software engineering in practice (pp. 291–300).
IEEE.
Amini, H., Gholami, R., Monjezi, M., Torabi, S. R., & Zadhesh, J. (2012). Evaluation of
flyrock phenomenon due to blasting operation by support vector machine. Neural
Computing and Applications, 21(8), 2077–2085.
AminShokravi, A., Eskandar, H., Derakhsh, A. M., Rad, H. N., & Ghanadi, A. (2018).
The potential application of particle swarm optimization algorithm for forecasting
the air-overpressure induced by mine blasting. Engineering with Computers, 34(2),
277–285.
Amiri, M., Bakhshandeh Amnieh, H., Hasanipanah, M., & Mohammad Khanli, L. (2016).
A new combination of artificial neural network and K-nearest neighbors models
to predict blast-induced ground vibration and air-overpressure. Engineering with
Computers, 32(4), 631–644.
Amiri, M., Hasanipanah, M., & Bakhshandeh Amnieh, H. (2020). Predicting ground
vibration induced by rock blasting using a novel hybrid of neural network and
itemset mining. Neural Computing and Applications, 32(18), 14681–14699.
Amoako, R., Jha, A., & Zhong, S. (2022). Rock fragmentation prediction using an
artificial neural network and support vector regression hybrid approach. Mining,
2(2), 233–247.
Arlot, S., & Celisse, A. (2010). A survey of cross-validation procedures for model
selection. Statistics Surveys, 4(none), 40–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/09-SS054.
Armaghani, D. J., Hajihassani, M., Mohamad, E. T., Marto, A., & Noorani, S. (2014).
Blasting-induced flyrock and ground vibration prediction through an expert arti-
ficial neural network based on particle swarm optimization. Arabian Journal of
Geosciences, 7(12), 5383–5396.
Armaghani, D. J., Hasanipanah, M., Amnieh, H. B., & Mohamad, E. T. (2018).
Feasibility of ICA in approximating ground vibration resulting from mine blasting.
Neural Computing and Applications, 29(9), 457–465.
Armaghani, D. J., Koopialipoor, M., Bahri, M., Hasanipanah, M., & Tahir, M. (2020). A
SVR-GWO technique to minimize flyrock distance resulting from blasting. Bulletin
of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 79(8), 4369–4385.
16
Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517
Armaghani, D. J., Momeni, E., Abad, S. V. A. N. K., & Khandelwal, M. (2015). Feasibility
of ANFIS model for prediction of ground vibrations resulting from quarry blasting.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 74(4), 2845–2860.
Arthur, C. K., Bhatawdekar, R. M., Mohamad, E. T., Sabri, M. M. S., Bohra, M.,
Khandelwal, M., et al. (2022). Prediction of blast-induced ground vibration at a
limestone quarry: An artificial intelligence approach. Applied Sciences, 12(18), 9189.
Asl, P. F., Monjezi, M., Hamidi, J. K., & Armaghani, D. J. (2018). Optimization of
flyrock and rock fragmentation in the Tajareh limestone mine using metaheuristics
method of firefly algorithm. Engineering with Computers, 34(2), 241–251.
Asr, E. T., Kakaie, R., Ataei, M., & Mohammadi, M. R. T. (2019). A review of studies
on sustainable development in mining life cycle. Journal of Cleaner Production, 229,
213–231.
Azimi, Y., Khoshrou, S. H., & Osanloo, M. (2019). Prediction of blast induced ground
vibration (BIGV) of quarry mining using hybrid genetic algorithm optimized
artificial neural network. Measurement, 147, Article 106874.
Babaeian, M., Sereshki, F., Ataei, M., Nehring, M., & Mohammadi, S. (2023). Appli-
cation of soft computing, statistical and multi-criteria decision-making methods to
develop a predictive equation for prediction of flyrock distance in open-pit mining.
Mining, 3(2), 304–333.
Bahrami, A., Monjezi, M., Goshtasbi, K., & Ghazvinian, A. (2011). Prediction of rock
fragmentation due to blasting using artificial neural network. Engineering with
Computers, 27(2), 177–181.
Bakhtavar, E., Sadiq, R., & Hewage, K. (2021). Optimization of blasting-associated costs
in surface mines using risk-based probabilistic integer programming and firefly
algorithm. Natural Resources Research, 30(6), 4789–4806.
Bamford, T., Esmaeili, K., & Schoellig, A. P. (2021). A deep learning approach for rock
fragmentation analysis. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
145, Article 104839.
Barkhordari, M., Armaghani, D., & Fakharian, P. (2022). Ensemble machine learning
models for prediction of flyrock due to quarry blasting. International Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology, 1–16.
Bayat, P., Monjezi, M., Mehrdanesh, A., & Khandelwal, M. (2022). Blasting pattern
optimization using gene expression programming and grasshopper optimization
algorithm to minimise blast-induced ground vibrations. Engineering with Computers,
38(4), 3341–3350.
Bayat, P., Monjezi, M., Rezakhah, M., & Armaghani, D. J. (2020). Artificial neural
network and firefly algorithm for estimation and minimization of ground vibration
induced by blasting in a mine. Natural Resources Research, 29(6), 4121–4132.
Behzadafshar, K., Mohebbi, F., Tehrani, M. S., Hasanipanah, M., & Tabrizi, O.
(2018). Predicting the ground vibration induced by mine blasting using imperialist
competitive algorithm. Engineering Computations.
Bhandari, S. (1997). Engineering rock blasting operations. Rotterdam: AA Balkema.
Bhatawdekar, R. M., Kumar, R., Sabri Sabri, M. M., Roy, B., Mohamad, E. T., Kumar, D.,
et al. (2023). Estimating flyrock distance induced due to mine blasting by extreme
learning machine coupled with an equilibrium optimizer. Sustainability, 15(4), 3265.
Bilim, N., Çelik, A., & Kekeç, B. (2017). A study in cost analysis of aggregate production
as depending on drilling and blasting design. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 134,
564–572.
Bołoz, Ł., & Biały, W. (2020). Automation and robotization of underground mining in
Poland. Applied Sciences, 10(20), 7221.
Bui, X.-N., Choi, Y., Atrushkevich, V., Nguyen, H., Tran, Q.-H., Long, N. Q., et al.
(2020). Prediction of blast-induced ground vibration intensity in open-pit mines
using unmanned aerial vehicle and a novel intelligence system. Natural Resources
Research, 29(2), 771–790.
Bui, X. N., Jaroonpattanapong, P., Nguyen, H., Tran, Q. H., & Long, N. Q. (2019).
A novel hybrid model for predicting blast-induced ground vibration based on
k-nearest neighbors and particle swarm optimization. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–14.
Bui, X. N., Nguyen, H., Le, H. A., Bui, H. B., & Do, N. H. (2020). Prediction of
blast-induced air over-pressure in open-pit mine: Assessment of different artificial
intelligence techniques. Natural Resources Research, 29(2), 571–591.
Bui, X. N., Nguyen, H., Tran, Q. H., Nguyen, D. A., & Bui, H.-B. (2021). Predicting
ground vibrations due to mine blasting using a novel artificial neural network-based
cuckoo search optimization. Natural Resources Research, 30(3), 2663–2685.
Chandrahas, N. S., Choudhary, B. S., Teja, M. V., Venkataramayya, M., & Prasad, N. K.
(2022). XG boost algorithm to simultaneous prediction of rock fragmentation and
induced ground vibration using unique blast data. Applied Sciences, 12(10), 5269.
Chen, L., Armaghani, D., Fakharuab, P., Bhatawdekar, R., Samui, P., Khandelwal, M.,
et al. (2022). A study on environmental issues of blasting using advanced support
vector machine algorithms. International Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology, 1–20.
Chen, L., Asteris, P. G., Tsoukalas, M. Z., Armaghani, D. J., Ulrikh, D. V., & Yari, M.
(2022). Forecast of airblast vibrations induced by blasting using support vector
regression optimized by the grasshopper optimization (SVR-GO) technique. Applied
Sciences, 12(19), 9805.
Chen, W., Hasanipanah, M., Nikafshan Rad, H., Jahed Armaghani, D., & Tahir, M.
(2021). A new design of evolutionary hybrid optimization of SVR model in
predicting the blast-induced ground vibration. Engineering with Computers, 37(2),
1455–1471.
Chu, X., Ilyas, I. F., Krishnan, S., & Wang, J. (2016). Data cleaning: Overview
and emerging challenges. In Proceedings of the 2016 international conference on
management of data (pp. 2201–2206).
V. Munagala et al.
Cunningham, C. (1983). The Kuz-Ram model for prediction of fragmentation from
blasting. In Proc. first int. symp. on rock fragmentation by blasting (pp. 439–453).
Dai, Y., Khandelwal, M., Qiu, Y., Zhou, J., Monjezi, M., & Yang, P. (2022). A
hybrid metaheuristic approach using random forest and particle swarm optimization
to study and evaluate backbreak in open-pit blasting. Neural Computing and
Applications, 34(8), 6273–6288.
D’Amour, A., Heller, K., Moldovan, D., Adlam, B., Alipanahi, B., Beutel, A., et al. (2022).
Underspecification presents challenges for credibility in modern machine learning.
Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(1), 10237–10297.
de Souza Nascimento, E., Ahmed, I., Oliveira, E., Palheta, M. P., Steinmacher, I., &
Conte, T. (2019). Understanding development process of machine learning systems:
Challenges and solutions. In 2019 ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical
software engineering and measurement (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
Dehghani, H., Pourzafar, M., et al. (2021). Prediction and minimization of blast-induced
flyrock using gene expression programming and cuckoo optimization algorithm.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 80(1), 1–17.
Desale, S., Rasool, A., Andhale, S., & Rane, P. (2015). Heuristic and meta-heuristic
algorithms and their relevance to the real world: A survey. International Journal of
Computer Engineering in Research Trends, 351(5), 2349–7084.
Dimitraki, L., Christaras, B., Marinos, V., Vlahavas, I., & Arampelos, N. (2019). Predict-
ing the average size of blasted rocks in aggregate quarries using artificial neural
networks. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 78(4), 2717–2729.
Ding, X., Hasanipanah, M., Nikafshan Rad, H., & Zhou, W. (2021). Predicting the blast-
induced vibration velocity using a bagged support vector regression optimized with
firefly algorithm. Engineering with Computers, 37(3), 2273–2284.
Ding, X., Jamei, M., Hasanipanah, M., Abdullah, R. A., & Le, B. N. (2023). Optimized
data-driven models for prediction of flyrock due to blasting in surface mines.
Sustainability, 15(10), 8424.
Ding, Z., Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., Zhou, J., & Moayedi, H. (2020). Computational
intelligence model for estimating intensity of blast-induced ground vibration in a
mine based on imperialist competitive and extreme gradient boosting algorithms.
Natural Resources Research, 29(2), 751–769.
Dumakor-Dupey, N. K., Arya, S., & Jha, A. (2021). Advances in blast-induced impact
prediction—A review of machine learning applications. Minerals, 11(6), 601.
Ebrahimi, E., Monjezi, M., Khalesi, M. R., & Armaghani, D. J. (2016). Prediction
and optimization of back-break and rock fragmentation using an artificial neural
network and a bee colony algorithm. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment, 75(1), 27–36.
Enayatollahi, I., Aghajani Bazzazi, A., & Asadi, A. (2014). Comparison between neural
networks and multiple regression analysis to predict rock fragmentation in open-pit
mines. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 47(2), 799–807.
Eskandar, H., Heydari, E., Hasanipanah, M., Masir, M. J., & Derakhsh, A. M. (2018).
Feasibility of particle swarm optimization and multiple regression for the prediction
of an environmental issue of mine blasting. Engineering Computations.
Esmaeili, M., Osanloo, M., Rashidinejad, F., Aghajani Bazzazi, A., & Taji, M. (2014).
Multiple regression, ANN and ANFIS models for prediction of backbreak in the
open pit blasting. Engineering with Computers, 30(4), 549–558.
Esmaeili, M., Salimi, A., Drebenstedt, C., Abbaszadeh, M., & Aghajani Bazzazi, A.
(2015). Application of PCA, SVR, and ANFIS for modeling of rock fragmentation.
Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8(9), 6881–6893.
Fang, Q., Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., Nguyen-Thoi, T., & Zhou, J. (2021). Modeling of rock
fragmentation by firefly optimization algorithm and boosted generalized additive
model. Neural Computing and Applications, 33(8), 3503–3519.
Fang, Q., Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., & Tran, Q. H. (2020). Estimation of blast-induced
air overpressure in quarry mines using cubist-based genetic algorithm. Natural
Resources Research, 29(2), 593–607.
Faradonbeh, R. S., Armaghani, D. J., Amnieh, H. B., & Mohamad, E. T. (2018). Predic-
tion and minimization of blast-induced flyrock using gene expression programming
and firefly algorithm. Neural Computing and Applications, 29(6), 269–281.
Faradonbeh, R. S., Armaghani, D. J., Monjezi, M., & Mohamad, E. T. (2016). Genetic
programming and gene expression programming for flyrock assessment due to mine
blasting. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 88, 254–264.
Faradonbeh, R. S., Hasanipanah, M., Amnieh, H. B., Armaghani, D. J., & Monjezi, M.
(2018). Development of GP and GEP models to estimate an environmental issue
induced by blasting operation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 190(6),
1–15.
Faradonbeh, R. S., Jahed Armaghani, D., & Monjezi, M. (2016). Development of a new
model for predicting flyrock distance in quarry blasting: A genetic programming
technique. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 75(3), 993–1006.
Faradonbeh, R. S., & Monjezi, M. (2017). Prediction and minimization of blast-
induced ground vibration using two robust meta-heuristic algorithms. Engineering
with Computers, 33(4), 835–851.
Fattahi, H., & Hasanipanah, M. (2021). Prediction of blast-induced ground vibration in
a mine using relevance vector regression optimized by metaheuristic algorithms.
Natural Resources Research, 30(2), 1849–1863.
Fissha, Y., Ikeda, H., Toriya, H., Adachi, T., & Kawamura, Y. (2023). Application
of Bayesian neural network (BNN) for the prediction of blast-induced ground
vibration. Applied Sciences, 13(5), 3128.
Fouladgar, N., Hasanipanah, M., & Bakhshandeh Amnieh, H. (2017). Application of
cuckoo search algorithm to estimate peak particle velocity in mine blasting.
Engineering with Computers, 33(2), 181–189.
17
Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517
Gao, W., Alqahtani, A. S., Mubarakali, A., Mavaluru, D., et al. (2020). Developing an
innovative soft computing scheme for prediction of air overpressure resulting from
mine blasting using GMDH optimized by GA. Engineering with Computers, 36(2),
647–654.
Gao, W., Karbasi, M., Hasanipanah, M., Zhang, X., & Guo, J. (2018). Developing GPR
model for forecasting the rock fragmentation in surface mines. Engineering with
Computers, 34(2), 339–345.
García, S., Luengo, J., & Herrera, F. (2015). Data preprocessing in data mining, vol. 72.
Springer.
Ghahramani, Z. (2003). Unsupervised learning. In Summer school on machine learning
(pp. 72–112). Springer.
Ghasemi, E. (2017). Particle swarm optimization approach for forecasting backbreak
induced by bench blasting. Neural Computing and Applications, 28(7), 1855–1862.
Ghasemi, E., Amini, H., Ataei, M., & Khalokakaei, R. (2014). Application of artificial
intelligence techniques for predicting the flyrock distance caused by blasting
operation. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 7(1), 193–202.
Ghasemi, E., Amnieh, H. B., & Bagherpour, R. (2016). Assessment of backbreak due
to blasting operation in open pit mines: A case study. Environmental Earth Sciences,
75(7), 1–11.
Ghasemi, E., Ataei, M., & Hashemolhosseini, H. (2013). Development of a fuzzy model
for predicting ground vibration caused by rock blasting in surface mining. Journal
of Vibration and Control, 19(5), 755–770.
Gorai, A. K., Himanshu, V. K., & Santi, C. (2021). Development of ANN-based universal
predictor for prediction of blast-induced vibration indicators and its performance
comparison with existing empirical models. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 38(5).
Görgülü, K., Arpaz, E., Demirci, A., Koçaslan, A., Dilmaç, M. K., & Yüksek, A. G. (2013).
Investigation of blast-induced ground vibrations in the Tülü boron open pit mine.
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 72(3), 555–564.
Guo, H., Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., & Armaghani, D. J. (2021). A new technique to predict
fly-rock in bench blasting based on an ensemble of support vector regression and
GLMNET. Engineering with Computers, 37(1), 421–435.
Guo, Q., Yang, S., Wang, Y., & Xiang, Z. (2022). Prediction research for blasting
peak particle velocity based on random GA-BP network group. Arabian Journal
of Geosciences, 15(15), 1351.
Guo, H., Zhou, J., Koopialipoor, M., Jahed Armaghani, D., & Tahir, M. (2021). Deep
neural network and whale optimization algorithm to assess flyrock induced by
blasting. Engineering with Computers, 37(1), 173–186.
Hajihassani, M., Armaghani, D. J., Sohaei, H., Mohamad, E. T., & Marto, A. (2014).
Prediction of airblast-overpressure induced by blasting using a hybrid artificial
neural network and particle swarm optimization. Applied Acoustics, 80, 57–67.
Hajihassani, M., Jahed Armaghani, D., Marto, A., & Tonnizam Mohamad, E. (2015).
Ground vibration prediction in quarry blasting through an artificial neural network
optimized by imperialist competitive algorithm. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and
the Environment, 74(3), 873–886.
Hajihassani, M., Jahed Armaghani, D., Monjezi, M., Mohamad, E. T., & Marto, A.
(2015). Blast-induced air and ground vibration prediction: A particle swarm
optimization-based artificial neural network approach. Environmental Earth Sciences,
74(4), 2799–2817.
Halevy, A., Norvig, P., & Pereira, F. (2009). The unreasonable effectiveness of data.
IEEE Intelligent Systems, 24(2), 8–12.
Han, H., Jahed Armaghani, D., Tarinejad, R., Zhou, J., & Tahir, M. (2020). Random
forest and Bayesian network techniques for probabilistic prediction of flyrock
induced by blasting in quarry sites. Natural Resources Research, 29(2), 655–667.
Harandizadeh, H., & Armaghani, D. J. (2021). Prediction of air-overpressure induced
by blasting using an ANFIS-PNN model optimized by GA. Applied Soft Computing,
99, Article 106904.
Hasanipanah, M., Amnieh, H. B., Arab, H., & Zamzam, M. S. (2018). Feasibility of PSO–
ANFIS model to estimate rock fragmentation produced by mine blasting. Neural
Computing and Applications, 30(4), 1015–1024.
Hasanipanah, M., & Bakhshandeh Amnieh, H. (2021). Developing a new uncertain rule-
based fuzzy approach for evaluating the blast-induced backbreak. Engineering with
Computers, 37(3), 1879–1893.
Hasanipanah, M., Faradonbeh, R. S., Amnieh, H. B., Armaghani, D. J., & Monjezi, M.
(2017). Forecasting blast-induced ground vibration developing a CART model.
Engineering with Computers, 33(2), 307–316.
Hasanipanah, M., Faradonbeh, R. S., Armaghani, D. J., Amnieh, H. B., & Khandelwal, M.
(2017). Development of a precise model for prediction of blast-induced flyrock
using regression tree technique. Environmental Earth Sciences, 76(1), 1–10.
Hasanipanah, M., Jahed Armaghani, D., Bakhshandeh Amnieh, H., Majid, M. Z. A., &
Tahir, M. (2017). Application of PSO to develop a powerful equation for prediction
of flyrock due to blasting. Neural Computing and Applications, 28(1), 1043–1050.
Hasanipanah, M., Jahed Armaghani, D., Khamesi, H., Bakhshandeh Amnieh, H., &
Ghoraba, S. (2016). Several non-linear models in estimating air-overpressure
resulting from mine blasting. Engineering with Computers, 32(3), 441–455.
Hasanipanah, M., Keshtegar, B., Thai, D. K., & Troung, N. T. (2020). An ANN-adaptive
dynamical harmony search algorithm to approximate the flyrock resulting from
blasting. Engineering with Computers, 1–13.
Hasanipanah, M., Monjezi, M., Shahnazar, A., Armaghani, D. J., & Farazmand, A.
(2015). Feasibility of indirect determination of blast induced ground vibration
based on support vector machine. Measurement, 75, 289–297.
V. Munagala et al.
Hasanipanah, M., Naderi, R., Kashir, J., Noorani, S. A., & Zeynali Aaq Qaleh, A. (2017).
Prediction of blast-produced ground vibration using particle swarm optimization.
Engineering with Computers, 33(2), 173–179.
Hasanipanah, M., Shahnazar, A., Arab, H., Golzar, S. B., & Amiri, M. (2017). Devel-
oping a new hybrid-AI model to predict blast-induced backbreak. Engineering with
Computers, 33(3), 349–359.
Hasanipanah, M., Shahnazar, A., Bakhshandeh Amnieh, H., & Jahed Armaghani, D.
(2017). Prediction of air-overpressure caused by mine blasting using a new hybrid
PSO–SVR model. Engineering with Computers, 33(1), 23–31.
He, Z., Armaghani, D. J., Masoumnezhad, M., Khandelwal, M., Zhou, J., & Murlidhar, B.
R. (2021). A combination of expert-based system and advanced decision-tree
algorithms to predict air-overpressure resulting from quarry blasting. Natural
Resources Research, 30(2), 1889–1903.
Holzinger, A., Biemann, C., Pattichis, C. S., & Kell, D. B. (2017). What do we need
to build explainable AI systems for the medical domain? arXiv preprint arXiv:
1712.09923.
Hosseini, S., Poormirzaee, R., & Hajihassani, M. (2022). Application of reliability-based
back-propagation causality-weighted neural networks to estimate air-overpressure
due to mine blasting. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 115, Article
105281.
Hosseini, S., Poormirzaee, R., Hajihassani, M., & Kalatehjari, R. (2022). An ANN-fuzzy
cognitive map-based Z-number theory to predict flyrock induced by blasting in
open-pit mines. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 55(7), 4373–4390.
Hosseini, S., Pourmirzaee, R., Armaghani, D. J., & Sabri Sabri, M. M. (2023). Prediction
of ground vibration due to mine blasting in a surface lead–zinc mine using machine
learning ensemble techniques. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 6591.
Huang, J., Asteris, P. G., Manafi Khajeh Pasha, S., Mohammed, A. S., & Hasanipanah, M.
(2020). A new auto-tuning model for predicting the rock fragmentation: A cat
swarm optimization algorithm. Engineering with Computers, 1–12.
Huang, J., & Xue, J. (2022). Optimization of svr functions for flyrock evaluation in
mine blasting operations. Environmental Earth Sciences, 81(17), 434.
Hudaverdi, T. (2022). Prediction of flyrock throw distance in quarries by variable
selection procedures and ANFIS modelling technique. Environmental Earth Sciences,
81(10), 281.
Jahed Armaghani, D., Hajihassani, M., Marto, A., Shirani Faradonbeh, R., & Mo-
hamad, E. T. (2015). Prediction of blast-induced air overpressure: A hybrid AI-based
predictive model. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 187(11), 1–13.
Jahed Armaghani, D., Hajihassani, M., Sohaei, H., Tonnizam Mohamad, E., Marto, A.,
Motaghedi, H., et al. (2015). Neuro-fuzzy technique to predict air-overpressure
induced by blasting. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8(12), 10937–10950.
Jahed Armaghani, D., Hasanipanah, M., Mahdiyar, A., Abd Majid, M. Z., Bakhshan-
deh Amnieh, H., & Tahir, M. (2018). Airblast prediction through a hybrid genetic
algorithm-ANN model. Neural Computing and Applications, 29(9), 619–629.
Jahed Armaghani, D., Hasanipanah, M., & Tonnizam Mohamad, E. (2016). A combi-
nation of the ICA-ANN model to predict air-overpressure resulting from blasting.
Engineering with Computers, 32(1), 155–171.
Jahed Armaghani, D., Kumar, D., Samui, P., Hasanipanah, M., & Roy, B. (2021). A novel
approach for forecasting of ground vibrations resulting from blasting: Modified
particle swarm optimization coupled extreme learning machine. Engineering with
Computers, 37(4), 3221–3235.
Jain, J., Agrawal, A., & Choudhary, B. S. (2022). An advance tool to predict ground
vibration using effective blast design parameters. Current Science, 123(7), 887–894.
Jamei, M., Hasanipanah, M., Karbasi, M., Ahmadianfar, I., & Taherifar, S. (2021).
Prediction of flyrock induced by mine blasting using a novel kernel-based extreme
learning machine. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 13(6),
1438–1451.
Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015). Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and
prospects. Science, 349(6245), 255–260.
Joseph, V. R. (2022). Optimal ratio for data splitting. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining:
The ASA Data Science Journal, 15(4), 531–538.
Kadingdi, F. A., Ayawah, P. E., Azure, J. W., Bruno, K. A., Kaba, A. G., & Frimpong, S.
(2022). Stacked generalization for improved prediction of ground vibration from
blasting in open-pit mine operations. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 39(6),
2351–2363.
Kapoor, S., & Narayanan, A. (2022). Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in ML-based
science. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.07048.
Ke, B., Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., & Costache, R. (2021). Estimation of ground vibration
intensity induced by mine blasting using a state-of-the-art hybrid autoencoder
neural network and support vector regression model. Natural Resources Research,
30(5), 3853–3864.
Keshtegar, B., Piri, J., Asnida Abdullah, R., Hasanipanah, M., Muayad Sabri Sabri, M.,
& Nguyen Le, B. (2023). Intelligent ground vibration prediction in surface mines
using an efficient soft computing method based on field data. Frontiers in Public
Health, 10, Article 1094771.
Khandelwal, M. (2011). Blast-induced ground vibration prediction using support vector
machine. Engineering with Computers, 27(3), 193–200.
Khandelwal, M., Armaghani, D. J., Faradonbeh, R. S., Yellishetty, M., Majid, M. Z. A.,
& Monjezi, M. (2017). Classification and regression tree technique in estimating
peak particle velocity caused by blasting. Engineering with Computers, 33(1), 45–53.
18
Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517
Khandelwal, M., & Kankar, P. (2011). Prediction of blast-induced air overpressure using
support vector machine. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 4(3), 427–433.
Khandelwal, M., & Monjezi, M. (2013). Prediction of backbreak in open-pit blasting op-
erations using the machine learning method. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,
46(2), 389–396.
Khandelwal, M., & Singh, T. (2009). Prediction of blast-induced ground vibration using
artificial neural network. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
46(7), 1214–1222.
Kitchenham, B., & Brereton, P. (2013). A systematic review of systematic review process
research in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 55(12),
2049–2075.
Kohavi, R., et al. (1995). A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy
estimation and model selection. In Ijcai, vol. 14 (pp. 1137–1145). Montreal, Canada.
Komadja, G. C., Rana, A., Glodji, L. A., Anye, V., Jadaun, G., Onwualu, P. A., et
al. (2022). Assessing ground vibration caused by rock blasting in surface mines
using machine-learning approaches: A comparison of CART, SVR and MARS.
Sustainability, 14(17), 11060.
Koopialipoor, M., Fallah, A., Armaghani, D. J., Azizi, A., & Mohamad, E. T. (2019).
Three hybrid intelligent models in estimating flyrock distance resulting from
blasting. Engineering with Computers, 35(1), 243–256.
Kotsiantis, S. B., Zaharakis, I., Pintelas, P., et al. (2007). Supervised machine learning:
A review of classification techniques. Emerging Artificial Intelligence Applications in
Computer Engineering, 160(1), 3–24.
Kulatilake, P., Hudaverdi, T., & Wu, Q. (2012). New prediction models for mean
particle size in rock blast fragmentation. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
30(3), 665–684.
Kumar, S., Mishra, A., & Choudhary, B. (2022). Prediction of back break in blasting
using random decision trees. Engineering with Computers, 38(2), 1185–1191.
Kumar, S., Mishra, A. K., & Choudhary, B. S. (2023). Estimation equations for back
break and ground vibration using genetic programming. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, 41(5), 3139–3149.
Längkvist, M., Karlsson, L., & Loutfi, A. (2014). A review of unsupervised feature
learning and deep learning for time-series modeling. Pattern Recognition Letters, 42,
11–24.
Larsen, J., & Goutte, C. (1999). On optimal data split for generalization estimation and
model selection. In Neural networks for signal processing IX: Proceedings of the 1999
IEEE signal processing society workshop (Cat. No. 98TH8468) (pp. 225–234). IEEE.
Lawal, A. I., & Kwon, S. (2021). Application of artificial intelligence to rock mechan-
ics: An overview. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 13(1),
248–266.
Lawal, A. I., Kwon, S., Hammed, O. S., & Idris, M. A. (2021). Blast-induced ground
vibration prediction in granite quarries: An application of gene expression pro-
gramming, ANFIS, and sine cosine algorithm optimized ANN. International Journal
of Mining Science and Technology, 31(2), 265–277.
Li, D., Koopialipoor, M., & Armaghani, D. J. (2021). A combination of fuzzy delphi
method and ANN-based models to investigate factors of flyrock induced by mine
blasting. Natural Resources Research, 30(2), 1905–1924.
Li, E., Yang, F., Ren, M., Zhang, X., Zhou, J., & Khandelwal, M. (2021). Prediction of
blasting mean fragment size using support vector regression combined with five
optimization algorithms. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
13(6), 1380–1397.
Longjun, D., Xibing, L., Ming, X., & Qiyue, L. (2011). Comparisons of random forest and
support vector machine for predicting blasting vibration characteristic parameters.
Procedia Engineering, 26, 1772–1781.
Mahdiyar, A., Jahed Armaghani, D., Koopialipoor, M., Hedayat, A., Abdullah, A.,
& Yahya, K. (2020). Practical risk assessment of ground vibrations resulting
from blasting, using gene expression programming and Monte Carlo simulation
techniques. Applied Sciences, 10(2), 472.
Marto, A., Hajihassani, M., Jahed Armaghani, D., Tonnizam Mohamad, E., &
Makhtar, A. M. (2014). A novel approach for blast-induced flyrock prediction based
on imperialist competitive algorithm and artificial neural network. The Scientific
World Journal, 2014.
Mehrdanesh, A., Monjezi, M., Khandelwal, M., & Bayat, P. (2021). Application of
various robust techniques to study and evaluate the role of effective parameters
on rock fragmentation. Engineering with Computers, 1–11.
Mehrdanesh, A., Monjezi, M., & Sayadi, A. R. (2018). Evaluation of effect of rock mass
properties on fragmentation using robust techniques. Engineering with Computers,
34(2), 253–260.
Miao, Y., Zhang, Y., Wu, D., Li, K., Yan, X., & Lin, J. (2021). Rock fragmentation size
distribution prediction and blasting parameter optimization based on the muck-pile
model. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 38(2), 1071–1080.
Mitchell, T. M. (1980a). The need for biases in learning generalizations. Citeseer.
Mitchell, T. M. (1980b). The need for biases in learning generalizations. Rutgers University.
Mohamed, M. T. (2009). Artificial neural network for prediction and control of
blasting vibrations in Assiut (Egypt) limestone quarry. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 46(2), 426–431.
Mohammadi, D., Mikaeil, R., & Abdollahi-Sharif, J. (2020). Implementation of an opti-
mized binary classification by GMDH-type neural network algorithm for predicting
the blast produced ground vibration. Expert Systems, 37(5), Article e12563.
V. Munagala et al.
Mohammadnejad, M., Gholami, R., Sereshki, F., & Jamshidi, A. (2013). A new
methodology to predict backbreak in blasting operation. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 60, 75–81.
Mojtahedi, S. F. F., Ebtehaj, I., Hasanipanah, M., Bonakdari, H., & Amnieh, H. B.
(2019). Proposing a novel hybrid intelligent model for the simulation of particle
size distribution resulting from blasting. Engineering with Computers, 35(1), 47–56.
Monjezi, M., Ahmadi, Z., Varjani, A. Y., & Khandelwal, M. (2013). Backbreak prediction
in the chadormalu iron mine using artificial neural network. Neural Computing and
Applications, 23(3), 1101–1107.
Monjezi, M., Amini Khoshalan, H., & Yazdian Varjani, A. (2012). Prediction of flyrock
and backbreak in open pit blasting operation: A neuro-genetic approach. Arabian
Journal of Geosciences, 5(3), 441–448.
Monjezi, M., Amiri, H., Farrokhi, A., & Goshtasbi, K. (2010). Prediction of rock
fragmentation due to blasting in Sarcheshmeh copper mine using artificial neural
networks. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 28(4), 423–430.
Monjezi, M., Baghestani, M., Shirani Faradonbeh, R., Pourghasemi Saghand, M., &
Jahed Armaghani, D. (2016). Modification and prediction of blast-induced ground
vibrations based on both empirical and computational techniques. Engineering with
Computers, 32(4), 717–728.
Monjezi, M., Bahrami, A., & Varjani, A. Y. (2010). Simultaneous prediction of
fragmentation and flyrock in blasting operation using artificial neural networks.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 47(3), 476–480.
Monjezi, M., Bahrami, A., Varjani, A. Y., & Sayadi, A. R. (2011). Prediction and
controlling of flyrock in blasting operation using artificial neural network. Arabian
Journal of Geosciences, 4(3), 421–425.
Monjezi, M., & Dehghani, H. (2008). Evaluation of effect of blasting pattern parameters
on back break using neural networks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 45(8), 1446–1453.
Monjezi, M., Dehghani, H., Shakeri, J., & Mehrdanesh, A. (2021). Optimization of
prediction of flyrock using linear multivariate regression (LMR) and gene expression
programming (GEP)—Topal Novin mine, Iran. Arabian Journal of Geosciences,
14(15), 1–12.
Monjezi, M., Khoshalan, H. A., & Varjani, A. Y. (2011). Optimization of open pit blast
parameters using genetic algorithm. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 48(5), 864–869.
Monjezi, M., Mehrdanesh, A., Malek, A., & Khandelwal, M. (2013). Evaluation of
effect of blast design parameters on flyrock using artificial neural networks. Neural
Computing and Applications, 23(2), 349–356.
Monjezi, M., Mohamadi, H. A., Barati, B., & Khandelwal, M. (2014). Application of soft
computing in predicting rock fragmentation to reduce environmental blasting side
effects. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 7(2), 505–511.
Murlidhar, B. R., Kumar, D., Jahed Armaghani, D., Mohamad, E. T., Roy, B., & Pham, B.
T. (2020). A novel intelligent ELM-BBO technique for predicting distance of mine
blasting-induced flyrock. Natural Resources Research, 29(6), 4103–4120.
Murlidhar, B. R., Nguyen, H., Rostami, J., Bui, X., Armaghani, D. J., Ragam, P., et
al. (2021). Prediction of flyrock distance induced by mine blasting using a novel
Harris Hawks optimization-based multi-layer perceptron neural network. Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 13(6), 1413–1427.
Nguyen, H., & Bui, X. N. (2019). Predicting blast-induced air overpressure: a robust
artificial intelligence system based on artificial neural networks and random forest.
Natural Resources Research, 28(3), 893–907.
Nguyen, H., & Bui, X. N. (2020). Soft computing models for predicting blast-induced
air over-pressure: A novel artificial intelligence approach. Applied Soft Computing,
92, Article 106292.
Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., Bui, H.-B., & Cuong, D. T. (2019). Developing an XGBoost
model to predict blast-induced peak particle velocity in an open-pit mine: A case
study. Acta Geophysica, 67(2), 477–490.
Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., Bui, H. B., & Mai, N. L. (2020). A comparative study of artificial
neural networks in predicting blast-induced air-blast overpressure at Deo Nai
open-pit coal mine, Vietnam. Neural Computing and Applications, 32(8), 3939–3955.
Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., Choi, Y., Lee, C. W., & Armaghani, D. J. (2021). A novel
combination of whale optimization algorithm and support vector machine with
different kernel functions for prediction of blasting-induced fly-rock in quarry
mines. Natural Resources Research, 30(1), 191–207.
Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., & Moayedi, H. (2019). A comparison of advanced computational
models and experimental techniques in predicting blast-induced ground vibration
in open-pit coal mine. Acta Geophysica, 67(4), 1025–1037.
Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., Nguyen-Thoi, T., Ragam, P., & Moayedi, H. (2019). Toward
a state-of-the-art of fly-rock prediction technology in open-pit mines using EANNs
model. Applied Sciences, 9(21), 4554.
Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., & Topal, E. (2023a). Enhancing predictions of blast-induced
ground vibration in open-pit mines: Comparing swarm-based optimization algo-
rithms to optimize self-organizing neural networks. International Journal of Coal
Geology, Article 104294.
Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., & Topal, E. (2023b). Reliability and availability artificial
intelligence models for predicting blast-induced ground vibration intensity in open-
pit mines to ensure the safety of the surroundings. Reliability Engineering & System
Safety, 231, Article 109032.
Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., & Tran, Q. H. (2021). Estimating air over-pressure resulting
from blasting in quarries based on a novel ensemble model (GLMNETs–MLPNN).
Natural Resources Research, 30(3), 2629–2646.
19
Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517
Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., Tran, Q. H., & Mai, N.-L. (2019). A new soft computing
model for estimating and controlling blast-produced ground vibration based on
hierarchical K-means clustering and cubist algorithms. Applied Soft Computing, 77,
376–386.
Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., Tran, Q. H., & Moayedi, H. (2019). Predicting blast-induced
peak particle velocity using BGAMs, ANN and SVM: A case study at the Nui Beo
open-pit coal mine in Vietnam. Environmental Earth Sciences, 78(15), 1–14.
Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., Tran, Q. H., Nguyen, D. A., Hoa, L. T. T., Le, Q. T., et al.
(2021). Predicting blast-induced ground vibration in open-pit mines using different
nature-inspired optimization algorithms and deep neural network. Natural Resources
Research, 30(6), 4695–4717.
Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., Tran, Q. H., Van Hoa, P., Nguyen, D. A., Hoa, L. T. T.,
et al. (2020). A comparative study of empirical and ensemble machine learning
algorithms in predicting air over-pressure in open-pit coal mine. Acta Geophysica,
68(2), 325–336.
Nguyen, H., Choi, Y., Bui, X. N., & Nguyen Thoi, T. (2019). Predicting blast-induced
ground vibration in open-pit mines using vibration sensors and support vector
regression-based optimization algorithms. Sensors, 20(1), 132.
Nguyen, H., Drebenstedt, C., Bui, X. N., & Bui, D. T. (2020). Prediction of blast-induced
ground vibration in an open-pit mine by a novel hybrid model based on clustering
and artificial neural network. Natural Resources Research, 29(2), 691–709.
Nikafshan Rad, H., Bakhshayeshi, I., Wan Jusoh, W. A., Tahir, M., & Foong, L. K.
(2020). Prediction of flyrock in mine blasting: A new computational intelligence
approach. Natural Resources Research, 29(2), 609–623.
Ohadi, B., Sun, X., Esmaieli, K., & Consens, M. P. (2020). Predicting blast-induced
outcomes using random forest models of multi-year blasting data from an open pit
mine. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 79(1), 329–343.
Peng, K., Zeng, J., Armaghani, D. J., Hasanipanah, M., & Chen, Q. (2021). A novel com-
bination of gradient boosted tree and optimized ANN models for forecasting ground
vibration due to quarry blasting. Natural Resources Research, 30(6), 4657–4671.
Qi, C. c. (2020). Big data management in the mining industry. International Journal of
Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials, 27(2), 131–139.
Qiu, Y., Zhou, J., Khandelwal, M., Yang, H., Yang, P., & Li, C. (2021). Performance
evaluation of hybrid WOA-XGBoost, GWO-XGBoost and BO-XGBoost models to
predict blast-induced ground vibration. Engineering with Computers, 1–18.
Rad, H. N., Hasanipanah, M., Rezaei, M., & Eghlim, A. L. (2018). Developing a least
squares support vector machine for estimating the blast-induced flyrock. Engineering
with Computers, 34(4), 709–717.
Rahm, E., Do, H. H., et al. (2000). Data cleaning: Problems and current approaches.
IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 23(4), 3–13.
Ramesh Murlidhar, B., Yazdani Bejarbaneh, B., Jahed Armaghani, D., Mohammed, A.
S., & Tonnizam Mohamad, E. (2021). Application of tree-based predictive models
to forecast air overpressure induced by mine blasting. Natural Resources Research,
30(2), 1865–1887.
Rezaeineshat, A., Monjezi, M., Mehrdanesh, A., & Khandelwal, M. (2020). Optimization
of blasting design in open pit limestone mines with the aim of reducing ground
vibration using robust techniques. Geomechanics and Geophysics for Geo-Energy and
Geo-Resources, 6(2), 1–14.
Rogers, W. P., Kahraman, M. M., Drews, F. A., Powell, K., Haight, J. M., Wang, Y.,
et al. (2019). Automation in the mining industry: Review of technology, systems,
human factors, and political risk. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 36(4), 607–631.
Rosales-Huamani, J. A., Perez-Alvarado, R. S., Rojas-Villanueva, U., & Castillo-
Sequera, J. L. (2020). Design of a predictive model of rock breakage by blasting
using artificial neural networks. Symmetry, 12(9), 1405.
Sadeghi, F., Monjezi, M., & Jahed Armaghani, D. (2020). Evaluation and optimization
of prediction of toe that arises from mine blasting operation using various soft
computing techniques. Natural Resources Research, 29(2), 887–903.
Saghatforoush, A., Monjezi, M., Shirani Faradonbeh, R., & Jahed Armaghani, D.
(2016). Combination of neural network and ant colony optimization algorithms
for prediction and optimization of flyrock and back-break induced by blasting.
Engineering with Computers, 32(2), 255–266.
Sayadi, A., Monjezi, M., Talebi, N., & Khandelwal, M. (2013). A comparative study
on the application of various artificial neural networks to simultaneous prediction
of rock fragmentation and backbreak. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, 5(4), 318–324.
Sayevand, K., & Arab, H. (2019). A fresh view on particle swarm optimization to
develop a precise model for predicting rock fragmentation. Engineering Computations.
Sayevand, K., Arab, H., & Golzar, S. B. (2018). Development of imperialist competitive
algorithm in predicting the particle size distribution after mine blasting. Engineering
with Computers, 34(2), 329–338.
Shahmoradi, J., Talebi, E., Roghanchi, P., & Hassanalian, M. (2020). A comprehensive
review of applications of drone technology in the mining industry. Drones, 4(3),
34.
Shams, S., Monjezi, M., Majd, V. J., & Armaghani, D. J. (2015). Application of fuzzy
inference system for prediction of rock fragmentation induced by blasting. Arabian
Journal of Geosciences, 8(12), 10819–10832.
Shang, Y., Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., Tran, Q. H., & Moayedi, H. (2020). A novel artificial
intelligence approach to predict blast-induced ground vibration in open-pit mines
based on the firefly algorithm and artificial neural network. Natural Resources
Research, 29(2), 723–737.
V. Munagala et al.
Sharma, M., Agrawal, H., & Choudhary, B. (2022). Multivariate regression and genetic
programming for prediction of backbreak in open-pit blasting. Neural Computing
and Applications, 34(3), 2103–2114.
Sharma, M., Choudhary, B. S., & Agrawal, H. (2022). Prediction of backbreak in
hot strata/fiery seam of open-pit coal mine by decision tree and random forest
algorithm. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 15(15), 1337.
Shi, X. z., Jian, Z., Wu, B. b., Huang, D., & Wei, W. (2012). Support vector machines
approach to mean particle size of rock fragmentation due to bench blasting
prediction. Transactions of the Nonferrous Metals Society of China, 22(2), 432–441.
Shirani Faradonbeh, R., Jahed Armaghani, D., Abd Majid, M., Md Tahir, M.,
Ramesh Murlidhar, B., Monjezi, M., et al. (2016). Prediction of ground vibration
due to quarry blasting based on gene expression programming: A new model for
peak particle velocity prediction. International Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology, 13(6), 1453–1464.
Shirani Faradonbeh, R., Monjezi, M., & Jahed Armaghani, D. (2016). Genetic program-
ing and non-linear multiple regression techniques to predict backbreak in blasting
operation. Engineering with Computers, 32(1), 123–133.
Singh, T., & Singh, V. (2005). An intelligent approach to prediction and control ground
vibration in mines. Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, 23(3), 249–262.
Stulp, F., & Sigaud, O. (2015). Many regression algorithms, one unified model: A
review. Neural Networks, 69, 60–79.
Sun, S., Cao, Z., Zhu, H., & Zhao, J. (2019). A survey of optimization methods from a
machine learning perspective. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 50(8), 3668–3681.
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT Press.
Taheri, K., Hasanipanah, M., Golzar, S. B., & Majid, M. Z. A. (2017). A hybrid artificial
bee colony algorithm-artificial neural network for forecasting the blast-produced
ground vibration. Engineering with Computers, 33(3), 689–700.
Temeng, V. A., Arthur, C. K., & Ziggah, Y. Y. (2022). Suitability assessment of different
vector machine regression techniques for blast-induced ground vibration prediction
in Ghana. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 8(1), 897–909.
Temeng, V. A., Ziggah, Y. Y., & Arthur, C. K. (2020). A novel artificial intelligent model
for predicting air overpressure using brain inspired emotional neural network.
International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 30(5), 683–689.
Temeng, V. A., Ziggah, Y. Y., & Arthur, C. K. (2021). Blast-induced noise level
prediction model based on brain inspired emotional neural network. Journal of
Sustainable Mining, 20.
Teney, D., Peyrard, M., & Abbasnejad, E. (2022). Predicting is not understanding:
Recognizing and addressing underspecification in machine learning. In Computer
vision–ECCV 2022: 17th European conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23–27, 2022,
Proceedings, Part XXIII (pp. 458–476). Springer.
Tonnizam Mohamad, E., Jahed Armaghani, D., Hasanipanah, M., Murlidhar, B. R., &
Alel, M. N. A. (2016). Estimation of air-overpressure produced by blasting operation
through a neuro-genetic technique. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(2), 1–15.
Trivedi, R., Singh, T., & Gupta, N. (2015). Prediction of blast-induced flyrock in
opencast mines using ANN and ANFIS. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
33(4), 875–891.
Van Engelen, J. E., & Hoos, H. H. (2020). A survey on semi-supervised learning. Machine
Learning, 109(2), 373–440.
Van der Walt, J., & Spiteri, W. (2020). A critical analysis of recent research into the
prediction of flyrock and related issues resulting from surface blasting activities.
Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 120(12), 701–714.
Wang, X., Hosseini, S., Jahed Armaghani, D., & Tonnizam Mohamad, E. (2023).
Data-driven optimized artificial neural network technique for prediction of flyrock
induced by boulder blasting. Mathematics, 11(10), 2358.
Wolpert, D. H. (1996). The lack of a priori distinctions between learning algorithms.
Neural Computation, 8(7), 1341–1390.
Xie, C., Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., Choi, Y., Zhou, J., & Nguyen Trang, T. (2021). Predicting
rock size distribution in mine blasting using various novel soft computing models
based on meta-heuristics and machine learning algorithms. Geoscience Frontiers,
12(3), Article 101108.
Xin, D., Wu, E. Y., Lee, D. J. L., Salehi, N., & Parameswaran, A. (2021). Whither
automl? Understanding the role of automation in machine learning workflows. In
Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp.
1–16).
Xu, Y., & Goodacre, R. (2018). On splitting training and validation set: A comparative
study of cross-validation, bootstrap and systematic sampling for estimating the
generalization performance of supervised learning. Journal of Analysis and Testing,
2(3), 249–262.
Yan, Y., Hou, X., & Fei, H. (2020). Review of predicting the blast-induced ground
vibrations to reduce impacts on ambient urban communities. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 260, Article 121135.
Yang, H., Hasanipanah, M., Tahir, M., & Bui, D. T. (2020). Intelligent prediction of
blasting-induced ground vibration using ANFIS optimized by GA and PSO. Natural
Resources Research, 29(2), 739–750.
Yang, H., Nikafshan Rad, H., Hasanipanah, M., Bakhshandeh Amnieh, H., & Nekouie, A.
(2020). Prediction of vibration velocity generated in mine blasting using support
vector regression improved by optimization algorithms. Natural Resources Research,
29(2), 807–830.
Yari, M., Armaghani, D. J., Maraveas, C., Ejlali, A. N., Mohamad, E. T., & Asteris, P.
G. (2023). Several tree-based solutions for predicting flyrock distance due to mine
blasting. Applied Sciences, 13(3), 1345.
20
Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517
Yari, M., Bagherpour, R., Jamali, S., & Shamsi, R. (2016). Development of a novel
flyrock distance prediction model using BPNN for providing blasting operation
safety. Neural Computing and Applications, 27(3), 699–706.
Yari, M., He, B., Armaghani, D. J., Abbasi, P., & Mohamad, E. T. (2023). A novel ensem-
ble machine learning model to predict mine blasting–induced rock fragmentation.
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 82(5), 187.
Ye, J., Dalle, J., Nezami, R., Hasanipanah, M., & Armaghani, D. J. (2020). Stochas-
tic fractal search-tuned ANFIS model to predict blast-induced air overpressure.
Engineering with Computers, 1–15.
Ye, J., Koopialipoor, M., Zhou, J., Armaghani, D. J., & He, X. (2021). A novel
combination of tree-based modeling and Monte Carlo simulation for assessing
risk levels of flyrock induced by mine blasting. Natural Resources Research, 30(1),
225–243.
Yu, C., Koopialipoor, M., Murlidhar, B. R., Mohammed, A. S., Armaghani, D. J.,
Mohamad, E. T., et al. (2021). Optimal ELM–Harris Hawks optimization and ELM–
Grasshopper optimization models to forecast peak particle velocity resulting from
mine blasting. Natural Resources Research, 30(3), 2647–2662.
Yu, Q., Monjezi, M., Mohammed, A. S., Dehghani, H., Armaghani, D. J., & Ulrikh, D.
V. (2021). Optimized support vector machines combined with evolutionary random
forest for prediction of back-break caused by blasting operation. Sustainability,
13(22), 12797.
Yu, Z., Shi, X., Miao, X., Zhou, J., Khandelwal, M., Chen, X., et al. (2021). Intelligent
modeling of blast-induced rock movement prediction using dimensional analysis
and optimized artificial neural network technique. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 143, Article 104794.
Yu, Z., Shi, X., Zhou, J., Chen, X., Miao, X., Teng, B., et al. (2020). Prediction of
blast-induced rock movement during bench blasting: Use of gray wolf optimizer
and support vector regression. Natural Resources Research, 29(2), 843–865.
Yu, Z., Shi, X., Zhou, J., Chen, X., & Qiu, X. (2020). Effective assessment of blast-
induced ground vibration using an optimized random forest model based on a
Harris Hawks optimization algorithm. Applied Sciences, 10(4), 1403.
Yu, Z., Shi, X., Zhou, J., Gou, Y., Huo, X., Zhang, J., et al. (2020). A new multikernel
relevance vector machine based on the HPSOGWO algorithm for predicting and
controlling blast-induced ground vibration. Engineering with Computers, 1–16.
Yu, Z., Shi, X., Zhou, J., Rao, D., Chen, X., Dong, W., et al. (2021). Feasibility of the
indirect determination of blast-induced rock movement based on three new hybrid
intelligent models. Engineering with Computers, 37(2), 991–1006.
Zangoei, A., Monjezi, M., Armaghani, D. J., Mehrdanesh, A., & Ahmadian, S. (2022).
Prediction and optimization of flyrock and oversize boulder induced by mine
blasting using artificial intelligence techniques. Environmental Earth Sciences, 81(13),
1–13.
Zeng, J., Jamei, M., Nait Amar, M., Hasanipanah, M., & Bayat, P. (2022). A novel
solution for simulating air overpressure resulting from blasting using an efficient
cascaded forward neural network. Engineering with Computers, 38(3), 2069–2081.
Zeng, J., Roussis, P. C., Mohammed, A. S., Maraveas, C., Fatemi, S. A., Armaghani, D.
J., et al. (2021). Prediction of peak particle velocity caused by blasting through
the combinations of boosted-CHAID and SVM models with various kernels. Applied
Sciences, 11(8), 3705.
Zhang, S., Bui, X. N., Trung, N. T., Nguyen, H., & Bui, H. B. (2020). Prediction of rock
size distribution in mine bench blasting using a novel ant colony optimization-based
boosted regression tree technique. Natural Resources Research, 29(2), 867–886.
Zhang, R., Li, Y., Gui, Y., & Zhou, J. (2022). Prediction of blasting induced air-
overpressure using a radial basis function network with an additional hidden layer.
Applied Soft Computing, 127, Article 109343.
Zhang, H., Zhou, J., Jahed Armaghani, D., Tahir, M., Pham, B. T., & Huynh, V. V.
(2020). A combination of feature selection and random forest techniques to solve
a problem related to blast-induced ground vibration. Applied Sciences, 10(3), 869.
Zhongya, Z., & Xiaoguang, J. (2018). Prediction of peak velocity of blasting vibration
based on artificial neural network optimized by dimensionality reduction of
FA-MIV. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2018.
Zhou, J., Aghili, N., Ghaleini, E. N., Bui, D. T., Tahir, M., & Koopialipoor, M. (2020).
A Monte Carlo simulation approach for effective assessment of flyrock based on
intelligent system of neural network. Engineering with Computers, 36(2), 713–723.
Zhou, X., Armaghani, D. J., Ye, J., Khari, M., & Motahari, M. R. (2021). Hybridization
of parametric and non-parametric techniques to predict air over-pressure induced
by quarry blasting. Natural Resources Research, 30(1), 209–224.
Zhou, J., Asteris, P. G., Armaghani, D. J., & Pham, B. T. (2020). Prediction of ground
vibration induced by blasting operations through the use of the Bayesian network
and random forest models. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 139, Article
106390.
Zhou, J., Dai, Y., Khandelwal, M., Monjezi, M., Yu, Z., & Qiu, Y. (2021). Performance
of hybrid SCA-RF and HHO-RF models for predicting backbreak in open-pit mine
blasting operations. Natural Resources Research, 30(6), 4753–4771.
Zhou, J., Koopialipoor, M., Murlidhar, B. R., Fatemi, S. A., Tahir, M., Jahed Ar-
maghani, D., et al. (2020). Use of intelligent methods to design effective pattern
parameters of mine blasting to minimize flyrock distance. Natural Resources
Research, 29(2), 625–639.
V. Munagala et al.
Zhou, J., Li, C., Arslan, C. A., Hasanipanah, M., & Bakhshandeh Amnieh, H. (2021).
Performance evaluation of hybrid FFA-ANFIS and GA-ANFIS models to predict
particle size distribution of a muck-pile after blasting. Engineering with Computers,
37(1), 265–274.
Zhou, J., Li, C., Koopialipoor, M., Jahed Armaghani, D., & Thai Pham, B. (2021).
Development of a new methodology for estimating the amount of PPV in surface
mines based on prediction and probabilistic models (GEP-MC). International Journal
of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 35(1), 48–68.
Zhou, J., Nekouie, A., Arslan, C. A., Pham, B. T., & Hasanipanah, M. (2020). Novel
approach for forecasting the blast-induced AOp using a hybrid fuzzy system and
firefly algorithm. Engineering with Computers, 36(2), 703–712.
21
Machine Learning with Applications 15 (2024) 100517
Zhou, J., Qiu, Y., Khandelwal, M., Zhu, S., & Zhang, X. (2021). Developing a hybrid
model of Jaya algorithm-based extreme gradient boosting machine to estimate
blast-induced ground vibrations. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 145, Article 104856.
Zhu, X. J. (2005). Semi-supervised learning literature survey. University of Wisconsin-
Madison Department of Computer Sciences.
Zhu, W., Rad, H. N., & Hasanipanah, M. (2021). A chaos recurrent ANFIS optimized by
PSO to predict ground vibration generated in rock blasting. Applied Soft Computing,
108, Article 107434.
Ziggah, Y. Y., Temeng, V. A., & Arthur, C. K. (2023). A new synergetic model of neigh-
bourhood component analysis and artificial intelligence method for blast-induced
noise prediction. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 1–20.