This paper presents an advanced computational approach to assess the risk of damage to masonry buildings subjected to negative kinematic impacts of underground mining exploitation. The research goals were achieved using selected tools from the area of artificial intelligence (AI) methods. Ultimately, two models of damage risk assessment were built using the Naive Bayes classifier (NBC) and Bayesian Networks (BN). The first model was used to compare results obtained using the more computationally advanced Bayesian network methodology. In the case of the Bayesian network, the unknown Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) structure was extracted using Chow-Liu’s Tree Augmented Naive Bayes (TAN-CL) algorithm. Thus, one of the methods involving Bayesian Network Structure Learning from data (BNSL) was implemented. The application of this approach represents a novel scientific contribution in the interdisciplinary field of mining and civil engineering.
| Authors | Chomacki, Leszek and Rusek, Janusz and Słowik, Leszek |
|---|---|
| Year | 2021 |
| Venue | Minerals (2075-163X) |
| DOI | 10.3390/min11090958 |
| Source Database | EBSCO (Academic Search Ultimate) |
| Bridge-to-GNN | Category Borderline |
| GNN Architecture | Not yet extracted from PDF |
| Graph Encoding | Not yet extracted from PDF |
| AEC Task | Not yet extracted from PDF |
| Cohort | Early Infrastructure (2020–2021) |
| Dataset Size | 207 buildings (heuristic — verify) |
|---|---|
| Primary Metric | Accuracy (heuristic — verify) |
| Primary Value | 83.89% (heuristic — verify) |
| Key Finding | advanced computational approach to assess the risk of damage to masonry buildings subjected to negative kinematic impacts of underground mining exploitation (heuristic — verify) |
| Quality Assessment | 3/6 · rigor: Medium · Benchmark: ✓Baseline: ✓CV/Split: ✓ (heuristic — verify) |
| GNN architectures detected | Knowledge Graph Embedding (TransE/RotatE/DistMult) |
|---|---|
| Benchmark datasets referenced | PubMed |
| Dataset stats found | 207 buildings |
| Reported metrics + values | Accuracy: 83.89% · Accuracy: 75.86% · Accuracy: 87.07% |
| Quality (heuristic, 6-flag) | 1/6 · rigor: Low Code/Data: —Benchmark: ✓Baseline: —CV/Split: —Ablation: —Reproducible: — |
Part of the GML/GNN in AEC Systematic Review (PRISMA 2020) — 112 papers, 2020–2026