Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx
www.keaipublishing.com/undsp

Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category

balance using feedforward neural network and Bayesian optimization
Diyuan Li a, Zida Liu a, Peng Xiao a, Jian Zhou a,⇑, Danial Jahed Armaghani b
a
School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
b
Department of Urban Planning, Engineering Networks and Systems, Institute of Architecture and Construction, South Ural State University, 76,
Lenin Prospect, Chelyabinsk 454080, Russia

Received 2 October 2021; received in revised form 16 December 2021; accepted 18 December 2021

Abstract

The rockburst prediction becomes more and more challenging due to the development of deep underground projects and construc-
tions. Increasing numbers of intelligent algorithms are used to predict and prevent rockburst. This paper investigated the drawbacks of
neural networks in rockburst prediction, and aimed at these shortcomings, Bayesian optimization and the synthetic minority oversam-
pling technique + Tomek Link (SMOTETomek) were applied to efficiently develop the feedforward neural network (FNN) model for
rockburst prediction. In this regard, 314 real rockburst cases were collected to establish a database for modeling. The database was
divided into a training set (80%) and a test set (20%). The maximum tangential stress, uniaxial compressive strength, tensile strength,
stress ratio, brittleness ratio, and elastic strain energy were selected as input parameters. Bayesian optimization was implemented to find
the optimal hyperparameters in FNN. To eliminate the effects of imbalanced category, SMOTETomek was adopted to process the train-
ing set to obtain a balanced training set. The FNN developed by the balanced training set received 90.48% accuracy in the test set, and
the accuracy improved 12.7% compared to the imbalanced training set. For interpreting the FNN model, the permutation importance
algorithm was introduced to analyze the relative importance of input variables. The elastic strain energy was the most essential variable,
and some measures were proposed to prevent rockburst. To validate the practicability, the FNN developed by the balanced training set
was utilized to predict rockburst in Sanshandao Gold Mine, China, and it had outstanding performance (accuracy 100%).

Keywords: Rockburst prediction; Feedforward neural network; Bayesian optimization; SMOTETomek

Introduction The rockburst occurrence affects the excavation mode of

Rockburst is a common dynamic instability mode dur-
ing excavation of underground projects in the deep and
hard brittle surrounding rock. This issue has been reported
in mines and tunnels in many countries globally (Blake &
Hedley, 2003; Cao et al., 2018, 2019; Du et al., 2020,
2021, 2022; Heal et al., 2006; Leger, 1991; Shukla et al.,
2021; Zhou et al., 2012, 2020, 2021d). With the develop-
ment of deep underground projects and applications, the
prediction and control of rockburst become more critical.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: j.zhou@csu.edu.cn (J. Zhou).
underground construction, the cross section of tunnels,
and the support pattern. However, in rock mechanics and
rock engineering, it is still a considerable challenge to pre-
dict rockburst accurately. It is important to mention that
many strategies to reduce rockburst disasters have unsatis-
factory results in practical application. Therefore, it is nec-
essary to explore the prediction method of rockburst in line
with the practical engineering application. In addition, the
level of prediction should be considered as high in solving
the rockburst problem.
The common prediction methods of rockburst can be
divided into empirical methods, numerical simulations,
physical model tests, mathematical models, and intelligent

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009
2467-9674/Ó 2022 Tongji University Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: D. Li, Z. Liu, P. Xiao et al., Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category balance using feedforward neural
network and Bayesian optimization, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009
2 D. Li et al. / Underground Space 6 (2021) 1–14
algorithms. Each of these methods has its advantages and
disadvantages, discussed in detail in previous studies
(Afraei et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2016,
2018). The supervised machine learning (ML) algorithm
is the frequently-used intelligent algorithm to predict rock-
burst, and it includes logistic regression, support vector
machine (SVM), decision trees, neural network, and
ensemble model. Although many ML algorithms are
specifically analyzed and applied in rockburst prediction,
no algorithm or technique can achieve excellent perfor-
mance for different rockburst problems according to the
‘‘No Free Lunch” theorem (Dai et al., 2022; Ke et al.,
2021; Khandelwal & Singh, 2009; Li et al., 2021a, 2021d;
Qiu et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Each
method has its superiority and drawback (Li et al.,
2021b, 2021c).
Li and Jimenez (2018) combined logistic regression and
empirical methods to predict long-term rockburst. For
logistic regression, it is simple and easy to understand
and interpret, and its training speed is fast, but its accuracy
is not strong enough (i.e., high), and it is difficult to fit the
actual distribution of data. Ghasemi et al. (2020) and Pu
et al. (2018) utilized the decision tree to forecast rockburst.
As for the decision tree, it requires less data, and it is suit-
able for data with missing values, yet its generalization per-
formance is poor. Zhou et al. (2016) and Pu et al. (2019)
adopted the SVM to predict rockburst. Though SVM has
a solid theoretical basis and good robustness and can avoid
the ‘‘dimension disaster,” it is challenging to solve multiple
classification problems with SVM. Wang et al. (2021) and
Xie et al. (2021) used the ensemble model based on decision
trees to predict rockburst. Zhang et al. (2020b) and Yin
et al. (2021) presented an ensemble ML method by aggre-
gating different single estimators to improve the accuracy
of rockburst prediction. Although the ensemble algorithm
has a high accuracy level and is not easy to overfit, the clas-
sifier should have distinction when synthesizing individual
classifiers. Xue et al. (2020) made use of the extreme learn-
ing machine to predict rockburst and adopted the particle
swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm to optimize the input
weight matrix and hidden layer bias of the extreme learning
machine. They compared the results of their model with
those of other ML models and empirical criteria, and pre-
sented a higher accuracy and applicability of their pro-
posed model. Zhou et al. (2020, 2021a) used the firefly
algorithm and the artificial bee colony algorithm to opti-
mize the neural network weights and biases for forecasting
rockburst. Evidence indicates that the performance of the
optimized neural network was significantly improved.
Zhang (2021) applied a backpropagation (BP) network to
predict rockburst risk in the coal mine and adopted PSO
to optimize the connection weights. The BP-PSO model
performed better than the BP model according to their
results. Neural networks have the ability to learn and con-
struct complex nonlinear relationships. Nevertheless, they
have some shortcomings in actual engineering applications:
2
Please cite this article as: D. Li, Z. Liu, P. Xiao et al., Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category balance using feedforward neural
network and Bayesian optimization, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009
(1) The neural networks have many hyperparameters to
tune (Xue et al., 2020), and it is very complex to
design a model with high accuracy. The hyperparam-
eters of the neural network affect the accuracy of pre-
diction, and neural networks with different
architectures have significant performance differences
(Goodfellow et al., 2016).
(2) The number of rockburst data with different grades in
the collected dataset is quite different (Xue et al.,
2020; Zhou et al., 2016, 2018). ML usually assumes
that the number of samples of different categories is
the same in classifying tasks. However, the number
of rockburst cases with different grades varies signif-
icantly in the collected dataset. The difference of cat-
egories number can affect the rockburst prediction
results.
Given the above shortcomings, this study introduced
feedforward neural network (FNN), Bayesian optimization
(BO), and the synthetic minority oversampling technique
+ Tomek Link (SMOTETomek) to effectively construct
rockburst prediction models. Bayesian optimization is
developed on the basis of the genetic algorithm, which
combines the knowledge of evolutionary computation
and statistics, and introduces the probability model built
by the Bayesian network. SMOTETomek is an artificial
sampling method that can be used to process imbalanced
data. Bayesian optimization has been widely applied for
optimizing ML hyperparameters, and it is suitable for
expensive valuation problems. Furthermore, in the field
of geotechnical engineering, BO has been successfully used
to deep learning nondestructive testing (Liang, 2019), slope
sensitivity analysis (Sameen et al., 2020), TBM perfor-
mance prediction (Zhang et al., 2020a; Zhou et al.,
2021d), Blast induced ground vibration (Qiu et al., 2021)
and other practical engineering problems.
The structure of this paper is as follows. The ‘Method-
ology’ section presents the technologies for building intelli-
gence models. The ‘Data’ section describes the collected
data and preprocesses the data. The ‘Simulation’ section
depicts the model evaluation methods and FNN design
and optimization for solving rockburst problems. In the
‘Results and discussion’ section, the test set is used to eval-
uate the performance of the model and analyze the impact
of category imbalance on the model performance, and the
FNN is interpreted and applied to practical engineering.
2 Methodology
2.1 FNN
Feedforward neural network is one of the most widely
used neural networks (Alemu et al., 2018), and it consists
of input, hidden, and output layers. The input layer pro-
vides input variables to the network, the output layer is
the last layer, and all the layers between the input and out-
put layers are considered as hidden layers. There are mul-
 D. Li et al. / Underground Space 6 (2021) 1–14 3

neural network (Eq. (1)). When FNN is trained, there

inevitably are several errors between the predicted and
actual values. To measure the errors, the loss function is
introduced into the neural network. The cross-entropy loss
function is used in multi-classification, as shown in Eq. (2).
Gradient descent is utilized to minimize the loss function.


x x0
ReLU ¼ ð1Þ
0 x<0

1X n X q
ðiÞ
lðHÞ ¼  y lnby ðjiÞ ð2Þ
n i¼1 j¼1 j

y ðjiÞ is the
In Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), x is the input variable, b
ðiÞ
predicted label, and y j is the actual label.

2.2 BO

Bayesian optimization is an iterative algorithm that is

Fig. 1. The flowchart of the BO algorithm (Archetti & Candelieri, 2019).
tiple neurons in each hidden layer. The information flows
from the input layer to the output layer through the hidden
layers. To make the neural network approximate any func-
tion, the activation function is added to the neural net-
work. ReLU is an activation function widely used in the
widely used in hyperparameter optimization problems. It
includes two essential parts, the surrogate model and the
acquisition function (Cui & Yang, 2018). The goal of the
surrogate model is to fit all currently observed points into
the objective function. After the prediction distribution of
the surrogate model is obtained, the acquisition function
is applied to determine the next point to be evaluated,
which can reduce the number of iterations and the cost
of the evaluation. Figure 1 displays the flowchart of the
BO algorithm.
Bayesian optimization often adopts the Gaussian pro-
cess (GP) as the surrogate model for objective function
modeling due to the flexibility and tractability of the GP
model (Snoek et al., 2012). GP is an extension of multi-
dimensional Gaussian distribution on an infinite-
dimensional stochastic process (Gu et al., 2020), and it is
specified by mean and covariance functions.
The common acquisition functions in BO include the
probability of improvement (Kushner, 1964), expected
improvement (Jones et al., 1998; Mockus et al., 1978),
and confidence bound (Archetti & Candelieri, 2019). It is
vital to choose an appropriate acquisition function and
match it with the surrogate model in practical optimization
problems. GP-Hedge is a mixed combination strategy of

Table 1
The statistical description of the dataset.
Statistical indicators rh rc rt rh =rc rc =rt W et
Max value 297.80 304.20 22.60 4.87 80.00 30.00
Min value 2.60 20.00 0.40 0.05 0.15 0.81
Mean value 57.50 115.83 7.03 0.56 21.34 5.01
Standard deviation 49.77 46.04 4.33 0.60 13.26 3.79
25th percentiles 29.09 84.22 3.50 0.27 12.05 2.86
50th percentiles 48.00 111.75 6.00 0.44 18.83 4.55
75th percentiles 67.20 146.74 9.68 0.63 25.69 6.14
Skew 2.97 0.75 1.00 4.27 1.87 3.46
Kurtosis 10.68 0.96 0.79 21.37 4.90 16.57
Fig. 2. The proportion of each type of rockburst.
3
Please cite this article as: D. Li, Z. Liu, P. Xiao et al., Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category balance using feedforward neural
network and Bayesian optimization, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009
4 D. Li et al. / Underground Space 6 (2021) 1–14
Fig. 3. Box plot of each variable for four rockburst groups.
acquisition function to select the most appropriate acquisi-
tion function in each iteration (Brochu et al., 2010).
Algorithm 1 GP-Hedge (Archetti & Candelieri, 2019)
1: D1:n fðx1 ; y 1 Þ;   ; ðxn ; y n Þg is the initial evaluation data.
2: N is the number of iteration.
3. Set initial gains gn ¼ 0 (gn 2 RM , M is the number of
acquisition functions).
4. for i ¼ n þ 1;   ; N do
5: Calculate the next point to be evaluated based on each
acquisition function :
xik ¼ argmaxað xjD1:n Þ; k ¼ 1;   ; M. P
6: According to the probability pi;k ¼ egi½k = M l¼1 e
gi½l
, xi is
selected in the candidate xik ,
and gi½k is the gains of the kth acquisition function in
the ith iteration.
7: Evaluate the objective function with noise
y i ¼ f ðxi Þ þ e.
8: Update the dataset for function evaluation
D1:t ¼ D1:n [ fðxi ; y i Þg.  
9: Update GP and gains gi½k ¼ gi1½k þ ui xi;k .
10: end for
2.3 SMOTETomek
Synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE) is
an over-sampling method that generates minority samples
through linear interpolation between two samples. Tomek
Links can be used as under-sampling by eliminating Tomek
Links pairs to eliminate noise or boundary data. SMOTE-
Tomek algorithm combines SMOTE and Tomek Links
(Batista et al., 2004). While SMOTE is utilized to balance
the category distribution, it also expands the sample space
of minority samples to that of other categories, which can
lead to the problem that space originally belonging to the
4
Please cite this article as: D. Li, Z. Liu, P. Xiao et al., Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category balance using feedforward neural
network and Bayesian optimization, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009
majority samples is ‘‘invaded” by minority samples and
also lead to the over-fitting of the model. By looking for
the Tomek Links pairs, the noise points or boundary points
can be found. Removing the Tomek Links pairs is a good
way to solve the ‘‘invaded” problem.
3 Data
3.1 Data source and description
In order to build the FNN model for rockburst predic-
tion, real rockburst cases were collected from all over the
world. These cases were from mines, underground caverns,
tunnels, etc., and they were recorded in the relevant litera-
ture from 1991 to 2019. The total datasets consisted of 314
cases, including 246 cases from Zhou et al. (2016), 20 cases
from Xue et al. (2019), 12 cases from Pu et al. (2019), 16
cases from Liu et al. (2019), 6 cases from Jia et al.
(2019), 7 cases from Du et al. (2006) and 7 cases from
Wu et al. (2019). In this database, there are 50 cases of
none rockburst, 96 cases of light rockburst, 115 cases of
moderate rockburst, and 53 cases of strong rockburst.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of all rockburst cases in this
study with their levels of danger. It is apparent that the
dataset is imbalanced, and the proportion of light and
moderate rockburst is higher than that of strong and none
rockburst.
In this paper, the maximum tangential stress (rh ), the
uniaxial compressive strength (rc ), the tensile strength
(rt ), the stress ratio (rh =rc ), the brittleness ratio (rc =rt ),
and the elastic strain energy index (W et ) were selected as
the input variables in FNN. These six parameters were
often used as the input parameters of supervised learning
for rockburst prediction in recent years (Xue et al., 2020;
Zhou et al., 2021a). Table 1 presents the statistical descrip-
tion of the dataset. In these statistical indicators, the max
and min values give the range of each variable, mean and
 D. Li et al. / Underground Space 6 (2021) 1–14 5

Fig. 4. The scatter plot of four rockburst groups.

percentiles describe the concentration, standard deviation rockburst data are significantly different from other rock-
depicts the dispersion, and skew and kurtosis reflect the burst intensity data in distribution, and strong and moder-
distribution of the dataset. The box plot of the dataset is ate rockburst has more outliers.
shown in Fig. 3. For most data samples, the median value
is not in the center of the box, indicating that the data dis- 3.2 Data pre-process
tribution is asymmetrical. Except for rc in the cases of
strong rockburst and rc =rt in the cases of none rockburst, The dataset was divided into a training set (80%) and a
the other variables all have some outliers. The scatter plot test set (20%). The training set was adopted to build the
of variables is displayed in Fig. 4. It can be seen that strong FNN model for rockburst prediction. The test set was used
5
Please cite this article as: D. Li, Z. Liu, P. Xiao et al., Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category balance using feedforward neural
network and Bayesian optimization, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009
6 D. Li et al. / Underground Space 6 (2021) 1–14

Fig. 5. The technique flowchart in this research.

to evaluate the performance of the model. Z  score stan-
dardization was adopted to process input parameters
(Eq. (3)). The none, light, moderate, and strong rockburst
intensities were replaced by 0,1,2,3 respectively.

0 xx
x ¼
r parameters of FNN. The SMOTETomek is adopted to

In Eq. (3), x is the average value of the data, and r is the
standard deviation of the data. After standardization, the
mean value of the data becomes zero, and the standard
deviation becomes one.
Figure 5 shows the proposed flowchart of this study. In
the proposed flowchart, BO is used to optimize the hyper-
ð3Þ
process the imbalanced training set to get a balanced train-

Table 2
Table 3
The confusion matrix.
The hyperparameters of FNN.
Actual label Predicted label
Parameters Optimization range
Positive Negative
The number of hidden layers (1,4)
Positive TP FN The number of neurons in each hidden layer (2,32)
Negative FP TN The max iterations (1,400)

6
Please cite this article as: D. Li, Z. Liu, P. Xiao et al., Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category balance using feedforward neural
network and Bayesian optimization, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009
 D. Li et al. / Underground Space 6 (2021) 1–14 7

Fig. 6. The steps to calculate the objective function.

ing set. The test set is used to determine the improvement
of FNN developed by the balanced training set compared
to the imbalanced training set. Finally, the FNN model is
interpreted and applied to predict rockburst in Sanshandao
Gold Mine.
4 Simulation
4.1 Model metrics
The accuracy, confusion matrix, precision, recall, and F1
were used as the evaluation indicators. These indicators are
commonly used in multi-classification problems. Table 2
shows the confusion matrix (Zhou et al., 2022). According
to the actual label and the predicted label, the sample can
be divided into true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true
negative (TN), and false negative (FN).
1 Xn  
Accuracy ¼ I y i ¼ yi ð4Þ
n i¼1
and four neurons in the output layer. After the input and
output layers were determined, the number of hidden lay-
ers and the number of neurons in each hidden layer should
be set in line with the complexity of the problem. The num-
ber of hidden layers, the number of neurons in each hidden
layer, and the max iterations have the most impact on the
FNN performance. Accordingly, these hyperparameters
were optimized by BO for improving the performance of
FNN. Referring to Zhang et al. (2020a), the optimal range
of the three parameters was chosen, as presented in
Table 3.
The prediction of rockburst intensity was a multi-
classification problem, and the output layer adopted Soft_-
max as the activation function. The ReLU function was
used as the activation function in each hidden layer. The
initial learning rate was set to 0.001, and the adaptive
learning algorithm was introduced in FNN (Chandra &
Sharma, 2016) to adapt to the dynamic adjustment of the
learning rate in the training stage.

TP
Precision ¼ ð5Þ
TP þ FP 4.3 FNN optimization
TP
Recall ¼ ð6Þ Before optimizing the FNN, the objective function
TP þ FN
should be defined. The cross-entropy loss function is widely
2  precision  recall
F1 ¼ ð7Þ used in FNN, and its formula is shown in Eq. (2). A smaller
precision þ recall value of the cross-entropy loss function is associated with
 the higher accuracy of model classification. In order to
In Eq. (4), n is the number of samples, y i depicts the pre-
dicted labels, y i depicts the actual labels, and I ðÞ is 1 if the
conditions in brackets are true and 0 otherwise. Table 4
The value of the parameter in the BO.
4.2 FNN parameter setting Parameters Value
Surrogate model GP
In this study, rh , rc , rt , rh =rc , rc =rt and W et were inputs Surrogate model hyperparameters Matern Kernel and White Kernel
to the FNN, and four rockburst intensities were output Acquisition function GP-Hedge
Noise 0.01
labels. Therefore, there were six neurons in the input layer
7
Please cite this article as: D. Li, Z. Liu, P. Xiao et al., Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category balance using feedforward neural
network and Bayesian optimization, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009
8 D. Li et al. / Underground Space 6 (2021) 1–14

In this study, the iteration was set to 50. Figure 8 exhi-

bits the iterative convergence process of the objective func-
tion. During these 50 iterations, BO can quickly find the
minimum value of the objective function. After optimiza-
tion, the number of hidden layers was 3, the neurons in
the hidden layer were 32, and the maximum iterations were
400. Table 5 presents the overall structural parameters of
the FNN.

5 Results and discussion

5.1 FNN model evaluation

The test set was utilized to assess the FNN performance.

Table 6 shows the accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 in the
test set. It can be seen that the FNN model has better per-
formance in none rockburst prediction. Figure 9 illustrates
the confusion matrix in the test set. It is apparent that the
light and moderate rockburst intensities are mixed into the
categories of each other when classified. This might be
because there is no obvious boundary between light and
moderate rockburst when the label of rockburst intensity
is divided.

5.2 The influence of category imbalance on FNN

In the training set, the number of light and moderate

rockburst was more than that of strong rockburst, which
made some data of strong rockburst wrongly classified into
light and moderate rockburst. In order to alleviate the
impact of this category imbalance on the accuracy of the
FNN, the SMOTETomek was used to process the training
data to balance the rockburst category. Python library,
Imbalanced-learn (Lematre et al., 2017), was used to imple-
ment SMOTETomek. The SMOTE, firstly, was utilized to
conduct the oversampling for none, light, and strong rock-
Fig. 7. The process of BO optimizing the objective function.
burst samples, and then TomekLinks was applied to
remove the Tomek’s links in the generated training set.
Figure 10 presents the number change in the training set
improve the generalization ability and avoid overfitting,
the average value of cross-entropy loss function in 5 fold
cross-validation (CV) was adopted as the objective func-
tion. Figure 6 displays the steps to calculate the objective
function. The training set is divided into five reciprocal
parts of the same size. Four parts are selected to train,
and the remaining is used for validation. Repeat the pro-
cess 5 times, and finally, the average loss in the five valida-
tions is taken.
The Scikit-Optimize, an open-source Python library, was
adopted to perform BO (Head et al., 2018). The parameters
of the BO utilized the default value in Scikit-Optimize.
Table 4 shows the value of the parameter in the BO.
Figure 7 displays the BO process for minimizing the
objective function. The parameter optimization range and
iteration number were defined. After the iteration number
was over, BO returned the optimal parameter value. Fig. 8. The iterative convergence of objective function.
8
Please cite this article as: D. Li, Z. Liu, P. Xiao et al., Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category balance using feedforward neural
network and Bayesian optimization, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009
 D. Li et al. / Underground Space 6 (2021) 1–14 9

Table 5
The FNN architectures.
Parameters Value
The neurons in the input layer 6
The number of hidden layers 3
The neurons in each hidden layer 32
The activation function in the hidden layer ReLU
The neurons in the output layer 4
The activation function in the output layer Soft_max
Initial learning rate 0.001
The learning rate adjustment Adaptive learning algorithm

Table 6
The metrics in the FNN model.
Metrics None Light Moderate Strong
Fig. 10. The number variation of training set before and after
Precision 1.00 0.71 0.71 0.88 SMOTETomek processing.
Recall 1.00 0.79 0.74 0.64
F1 1.00 0.75 0.72 0.74
Accuracy in the training set 83.07% Table 7
Accuracy in the test set 77.78% The metrics in the FNN model trained by the balanced training set.
Metrics None Light Moderate Strong

before and after SMOTETomek processing. SMOTETo- Precision 0.91 0.94 0.91 0.83
Recall 1.00 0.84 0.87 1.00
mek generates some data in none and strong rockburst
F1 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.92
and removes some data in moderate rockburst, making Accuracy in the training set 93.80%
the sample category of the training set close to balance. Accuracy in the test set 90.48%
The balanced training set processed by SMOTETomek
was input to the FNN that adopted the hyperparameters
in Table 5. The test set was used to evaluate the FNN per- anced training set. It is apparent that the FNN has
formance. Table 7 lists the metrics in the FNN model significant improvement in predicting strong rockburst.
developed by the balanced training set. When the rockburst Meanwhile, the problem of misclassification between light
intensity category tends to balance, the accuracy of the and moderate rockburst to each other is also mitigated.
training set increases by 10.73%, and the accuracy of the Figure 12 displays the metrics variation in FNN before
test set increases by 12.7%. Figure 11 displays the confu- and after the balance of rockburst data categories. Except
sion matrix of the test set in the FNN developed by the bal- for the precision in strong rockburst and the precision and
F1 in none rockburst, the other indicators have been
improved. This suggests that applying SMOTETomek to
process the training set to make the category balance is
conducive to improving the performance of FNN for rock-
burst prediction.

5.3 FNN interpretation

The neural network is considered to be a black-box

model, and in order to explain the FNN, the permutation
feature importance is introduced to analyze the relative
importance of input variables in the FNN model. The per-
mutation feature importance is defined to be the decrease
in a model score when a single feature value is randomly
shuffled (2001), and it is especially useful for non-linear
or opaque machine learning models (Pedregosa et al.,
2011). The relative importance of input variables in the
FNN was calculated, as shown in Fig. 13. It can be seen
that the relative importance of variables in the FNN model
changes before and after training set balancing. However,
Fig. 9. The confusion matrix in the test set. W et is always the most essential variable affecting the rock-
9
Please cite this article as: D. Li, Z. Liu, P. Xiao et al., Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category balance using feedforward neural
network and Bayesian optimization, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009
10 D. Li et al. / Underground Space 6 (2021) 1–14

Fig. 11. The confusion matrix of the test set in FNN trained by the
balanced training set. Fig. 13. The relative importance of input variables in the FNN model.

can reduce W et of the roof in coal mines. Luo (2020)

burst prediction in FNN. It is obligatory to investigate W et
to prevent rockburst. Many scholars conducted a series of
researches on W et (Luo & Gong, 2020a, 2020b). Wang and
Park (2001) investigated the effects of W et stored in rocks
by experiment. Feng et al. (2020) pointed that backfilling
mining stope and enhancing the strength of refilled rock
pointed that water can lessen the W et stored in the rock.
Guo et al. (2021) reported that moderate plastic deforma-
tion can lower the W et of coal body by carrying out cyclic
loading and unloading experiments on coal samples.
According to these researches, some measures are proposed
to prevent the rockburst on site:

Fig. 12. The metrics variation in FNN before and after training set balancing.
10
Please cite this article as: D. Li, Z. Liu, P. Xiao et al., Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category balance using feedforward neural
network and Bayesian optimization, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009
 D. Li et al. / Underground Space 6 (2021) 1–14 11

(3) Constructors can adopt pre-cracking and pressure

relief blasting measures in the advanced working face
on site (Guo et al., 2021).
(4) When tunnels have severe spalling and their sur-
rounding rock is relatively intact, builders can sprin-
kle water on the tunnel surface or inject water into
rock to eliminate rockburst risk (Li et al., 2020;
Luo, 2020).
(5) For underground mines, managers should carefully
consider the mining layout, ameliorate the mining
sequence, and use fill mining as far as possible to mit-
igate rockburst risk (Feng et al., 2020; Li et al., 2017).

Fig. 14. The rockburst site of Sanshandao Gold Mine.

5.4 The engineering application

(1) Deformable bolts and mesh are applied to support
the surrounding rocks, which are beneficial to releas-
ing energy through limited displacement (Wang &
Park, 2001).
(2) Engineers should pay attention to reducing vibration
when designing blasting work to avoid dynamic
effects (Li et al., 2019; Wang & Park, 2001).
The deep shaft is developed in the Sanshandao Gold
Mine in order to meet the production requirements. Due
to the complex geological conditions and the distribution
of several faults, the construction of the deep shaft in the
Sanshandao Gold Mine faces many challenges (Xiao
et al., 2021a), among which rockburst is a crucial factor
restricting mine development. Figure 14 displays the rock-

Table 8
The rockburst data in Sanshandao Gold Mine.
No. Rock type rh (MPa) rc (MPa) rt (MPa) rh =rc rc =rt W et Grade
1 Granite 88.57 157.15 9.04 0.56 17.38 5.4 Moderate
2 Granite 110.55 106.2 9.59 1.04 11.08 12.51 Strong
3 Granite 113.94 148.78 9.40 0.77 15.83 7.42 Strong
4 Gabbro 45.94 78.48 14.25 0.59 5.51 2.45 Light
5 Granite 119.69 119.77 9.35 1.00 12.81 10.19 Strong
6 Diorite 178.91 75.21 10.81 2.38 6.96 3.9 Strong

Table 9
Empirical method index.
Index Equations Rockburst level
Russenes criterion (Russenes, 1974) rh =rc rh =rc < 0:2, none; 0:2 < rh =rc < 0:3, light; 0:3 < rh =rc < 0:55, moderate;
0:55 < rh =rc , strong
Rock brittleness coefficient criterion rc =rt 40 < rc =rt , none; 26:7 < 40 < rc =rt < 40, light; 14:5 < rc =rt < 26:7, moderate;
(Wang et al., 1998) rc =rt < 14:5, strong
Elastic energy index (Zhou et al. 2018) W et W et < 2, none; 2 < W et < 5, light; 5 < W et < 10, moderate; 10 < W et , strong

Table 10
Rockburst prediction results in Sanshandao Gold mine.
No. Russenes criterion Rock brittleness coefficient criterion Elastic energy index FNN Grade
1 Strong Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
2 Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong
3 Strong Moderate Moderate Strong Strong
4 Strong Strong Light Light Light
5 Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong
6 Strong Strong Light Strong Strong
Accuracy 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 100% –

11
Please cite this article as: D. Li, Z. Liu, P. Xiao et al., Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category balance using feedforward neural
network and Bayesian optimization, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009
12 D. Li et al. / Underground Space 6 (2021) 1–14
burst site of Sanshandao Gold Mine. Six group rock blocks
were taken in different locations in Sanshandao Gold
Mine, and these blocks were processed into two types of
standard specimens, Ø50 mm  100 mm and Ø50
mm  25 mm. Rock tests were carried out on the speci-
mens with Ø50 mm  100 mm in INSTRON 1346 rock
mechanics test system to obtain rc and W et . Split tension
tests were conducted on the specimens with Ø50
mm  25 mm in INSTRON 1342 rock mechanics test sys-
tem to get rt (Li et al., 2022; Xiao et al., 2021b). By field
investigation and calculating surrounding rock stress, rh
and rockburst grades in different locations were obtained.
Table 8 lists the mechanical parameters and the rockburst
grade in Sanshandao Gold Mine.
The FNN model developed by the balanced training set
was used to predict the rockburst risk in the Sanshandao
Gold Mine. Meanwhile, three empirical methods were
adopted to forecast the rockburst, as shown in Table 9. In
addition, Table 10 displays the prediction results. It is appar-
ent that the prediction performance of FNN developed by
the balanced training set is better than other methods.
6 Conclusion
(1) In this study, a rockburst dataset containing 314 real
cases was established, and the FNN was used to con-
struct the intelligent model for rockburst prediction.
In order to construct the model efficiently, BO was
introduced to tune the hyperparameters of FNN.
Bayesian optimization was beneficial to building a
more accurate model for rockburst prediction.
(2) The training set was utilized to train the FNN, and
the test set was used to evaluate the FNN. The
FNN model had 77.78% accuracy in the test set. To
improve accuracy, SMOTETomek was utilized to
process the training set to generate a balanced train-
ing set. After training data balance, the test set accu-
racy in FNN was 90.4%, which was improved by
12.7%.
(3) In view of the disadvantages of the black-box model,
the permutation importance was introduced to
explain FNN. The results indicated that W et had
the most significant influence on rockburst prediction
in the FNN model. According to the analysis of W et ,
some measures were proposed to alleviate rockburst
risk on site.
(4) The FNN developed by the balanced training set was
adopted to predict rockburst in the Sanshandao Gold
Mine, and it had the highest accuracy (100%) com-
pared to the empirical methods.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
12
Please cite this article as: D. Li, Z. Liu, P. Xiao et al., Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category balance using feedforward neural
network and Bayesian optimization, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (41807259) and the Innova-
tion Driven Project of Central South University
(2020CX040).
References
Afraei, S., Shahriar, K., & Madani, S. H. (2019). Developing intelligent
classification models for rock burst prediction after recognizing
significant predictor variables, Section 1: Literature review and data
preprocessing procedure. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technol-
ogy, 83, 324–353.
Alemu, H. Z., Wu, W., & Zhao, J. (2018). Feedforward neural
networks with a hidden layer regularization method. Symmetry, 10
(10), 525.
Archetti, F., & Candelieri, A. (2019). Bayesian optimization and data
science. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Batista, G., Prati, R. C., & Monard, M. C. (2004). A study of the behavior
of several methods for balancing machine learning training data. ACM
SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 6(1), 20–29.
Blake, W., & Hedley, D. G. (2003). Rockbursts: Case studies from North
American hard-rock mines. SME.
Breiman (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32.
Brochu, E., Hoffman, M.W., & de Freitas, N. (2010). Portfolio allocation
for Bayesian optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv: 10095419.
Cao, W., Shi, J. Q., Durucan, S., Korre, A., & Jamnikar, S. (2019).
Numerical modelling of anomalous microseismicity influenced by
lithological heterogeneity in longwall top coal caving mining. Interna-
tional Journal of Coal Geology, 216, 103305.
Cao, W., Shi, J. Q., Si, G., Durucan, S., & Korre, A. (2018). Numerical
modelling of microseismicity associated with longwall coal mining.
International Journal of Coal Geology, 193, 30–45.
Chandra, B., & Sharma, R. K. (2016). Deep learning with adaptive
learning rate using laplacian score. Expert Systems with Applications,
63, 1–7.
Cui, J., & Yang, B. (2018). Survey on Bayesian optimization methodology
and applications. Journal of Software, 29(10), 3068–3090.
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 Comput & Applic, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00521-021-06776-z.
Du, K., Li, X. F., Su, R., Tao, M., Lv, S. Z., Luo, J., & Zhou, J. (2022).
Shape ratio efects on the mechanical characteristics of rectangular
prism rocks and isolated pillars under uniaxial compression. Interna-
tional Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 1–16. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijmst.2022.01.004.
Du, K., Li, X. F., Yang, C. Z., Zhou, J., Chen, S. J., & Manoj, K. (2020).
Experimental investigations on mechanical performance of rocks
under fatigue loads and biaxial confinements. Journal of Central South
University, 27(10), 2985–2998.
Du, K., Sun, Y., Zhou, J., Wang, S. F., Tao, M., Yang, C., & Khandelwal,
M. (2021). Low amplitude fatigue performance of sandstone, marble,
and granite under high static stress. Geomechanics and Geophysics for
Geo-Energy and Geo-Resources, 7(3), 1–21.
Du, Z., Xu, M., Liu, Z., & Wu, X. (2006). Laboratory integrated
evaluation method for engineering wall rock rock-burst. Gold, 27(11),
26–30 (in Chinese).
Feng, X., Zhang, Q., & Ali, M. (2020). 3D modelling of the strength effect
of backfill-rocks on controlling rockburst risk: A case study. Arabian
Journal of Geosciences, 13(3), 128.
Ghasemi, E., Gholizadeh, H., & Adoko, A. C. (2020). Evaluation of
rockburst occurrence and intensity in underground structures using
decision tree approach. Engineering with Computers, 36(1), 213–225.
Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT
press.
Gu, T., Xu, G., Li, W., Li, J., Wand, Z., & Luo, J. (2020). Intelligent
house price evaluation model based on ensemble LightGBM and
Bayesian optimization strategy. Journal of Computer Applications, 40
(9), 2762–2767 (in Chinese).
 D. Li et al. / Underground Space 6 (2021) 1–14
Guo, H., Ji, M., Liu, D., Liu, M., Li, G., Chen, J., & Chen, H. (2021).
Energy Variation Law and Rockburst Characteristics of Coal under
Cyclic Loading. Shock and Vibration, 2021, 5528555.
Head, T., MechCoder, G. L., & Shcherbatyi, I. (2018). Scikit-optimize/
scikit-optimize: v0. 5.2. Zenodo.
Heal, D., Hudyma, M., & Potvin, Y. (2006). Evaluating Rockburst
Damage Potential in Underground Mining. Paper presented at the
Golden Rocks 2006, The 41st U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics
(USRMS).
Jia, Q., Wu, L., Li, B., Chen, C., & Peng, Y. (2019). The comprehensive
prediction model of rockburst tendency in tunnel based on optimized
unascertained measure theory. Geotechnical and Geological Engineer-
ing, 37(4), 3399–3411.
Jones, D. R., Schonlau, M., & Welch, W. J. (1998). Efficient global
optimization of expensive black-box functions. Journal of Global
Optimization, 13(4), 455–492.
Ke, B., Khandelwal, M., Asteris, P. G., Skentou, A. D., Mamou, A., &
Armaghani, D. J. (2021). Rock-burst occurrence prediction based on
optimized Naı̈ve Bayes models. IEEE Access, 9, 91347–91360.
Khandelwal, M., & Singh, T. N. (2009). Prediction of blast-induced
ground vibration using artificial neural network. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 46(7), 1214–1222.
Kushner, H. J. (1964). A new method of locating the maximum point of
an arbitrary multipeak curve in the presence of noise. Journal of Basic
Engineering, 86(1), 97–106.
Leger, J. P. (1991). Trends and causes of fatalities in South African mines.
Safety Science, 14(3/4), 169–185.
Lematre, G., Nogueira, F., & Aridas, C. K. (2017). Imbalanced-learn: A
python toolbox to tackle the curse of imbalanced datasets in machine
learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(1), 559–563.
Li, G., Cheng, X. F., Pu, H., & Tang, C. A. (2019). Damage smear method
for rock failure process analysis. Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, 11(6), 1151–1165.
Li, N., & Jimenez, R. (2018). A logistic regression classifier for long-term
probabilistic prediction of rock burst hazard. Natural Hazards, 90(1),
197–215.
Li, D., Liu, Z. D., Armaghani, D. J., Xiao, P., & Zhou, J. (2022). Novel
ensemble intelligencemethodologies for rockburst assessment in com-
plex and variable environments. Scientifc Reports, 12, 1844. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05594-0.
Li, G., Tang, C. A., & Liang, Z. Z. (2017). Development of a parallel FE
simulator for modeling the whole trans-scale failure process of rock
from meso-to engineering-scale. Computers & Geosciences, 98, 73–86.
Li, G., Wang, K., & Qian, X. (2020). An NMM-based fluid-solid coupling
model for simulating rock hydraulic fracturing process. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics, 235, 107193.
Li, E., Yang, F., Ren, M., Zhang, X., Zhou, J., & Khandelwal, M.
(2021a). 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.
Li, C., Zhou, J., Armaghani, D. J., Cao, W., & Yagiz, S. (2021b).
Stochastic assessment of hard rock pillar stability based on the
geological strength index system. Geomechanics and Geophysics for
Geo-Energy and Geo-Resources, 7(2), 47.
Li, C., Zhou, J., Armaghani, D. J., & Li, X. (2021c). Stability analysis of
underground mine hard rock pillars via combination of finite difference
methods, neural networks, and Monte Carlo simulation techniques.
Underground Space, 6(4), 379–395.
Li, E., Zhou, J., Shi, X., Armaghani, D. J., Yu, Z., Chen, X., & Huang, P.
(2021d). Developing a hybrid model of salp swarm algorithm-based
support vector machine to predict the strength of fiber-reinforced
cemented paste backfill. Engineering with Computers, 37(4), 3519–3540.
Liang, X. (2019). Image-based post-disaster inspection of reinforced
concrete bridge systems using deep learning with Bayesian optimiza-
tion. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 34(5),
415–430.
Liu, R., Ye, Y., Hu, N., Chen, H., & Wang, X. (2019). Classified
prediction model of rockburst using rough sets-normal cloud. Neural
Computing and Applications, 31(12), 8185–8193.
Luo, Y. (2020). Influence of water on mechanical behavior of surrounding
rock in hard-rock tunnels: An experimental simulation. Engineering
Geology, 277, 105816.
Luo, S., & Gong, F. (2020a). Linear energy storage and dissipation laws
during rock fracture under three-point flexural loading. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics, 234, 107102.
13
Please cite this article as: D. Li, Z. Liu, P. Xiao et al., Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category balance using feedforward neural
network and Bayesian optimization, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009
13
Luo, S., & Gong, F. (2020b). Linear energy storage and dissipation laws of
rocks under preset angle shear conditions. Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, 53(7), 3303–3323.
Mockus, J., Tiesis, V., & Zilinskas, A. (1978). The application of Bayesian
methods for seeking the extremum. Towards global optimization, 2(2),
117–129.
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B.,
Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V.,
Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M.,
& Duchesnay, É. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. the
Journal of machine Learning research, 12, 2825–2830.
Pu, Y., Apel, D. B., & Lingga, B. (2018). Rockburst prediction in
kimberlite using decision tree with incomplete data. Journal of
Sustainable Mining, 17(3), 158–165.
Pu, Y., Apel, D. B., & Xu, H. (2019). Rockburst prediction in kimberlite
with unsupervised learning method and support vector classifier.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 90, 12–18.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-
01393-9.
Russenes, B. (1974). Analysis of rock spalling for tunnels in steep valley
sides (in Norwegian). Norway: Norwegian Institute of Technology,
Department of Geology, Master’s Thesis.
Sameen, M. I., Pradhan, B., & Lee, S. (2020). Application of convolu-
tional neural networks featuring Bayesian optimization for landslide
susceptibility assessment. Catena, 186, 104249.
Shukla, R., Khandelwal, M., & Kankar, P. K. (2021). Prediction and
assessment of rock burst using various meta-heuristic approaches.
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 38(3), 1375–1381.
Snoek, J., Larochelle, H., & Adams, R. P. (2012). Practical bayesian
optimization of machine learning algorithms. Advances in Neural
Information Processing Systems, 25, 2960–2968.
Wang, J.-A., & Park, H. (2001). Comprehensive prediction of rockburst
based on analysis of strain energy in rocks. Tunnelling and Under-
ground Space Technology, 16(1), 49–57.
Wang, S.-M., Zhou, J., Li, C.-Q., Armaghani, D. J., Li, X.-B., & Mitri, H.
S. (2021). Rockburst prediction in hard rock mines developing bagging
and boosting tree-based ensemble techniques. Journal of Central South
University, 28(2), 527–542.
Wang, Y. H., Li, W. D., Li, Q. G., Xu, Y., & Tan, G. H. (1998). Method
of fuzzy comprehensive evaluations for rockburst prediction. Chinese
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 17(5), 493–501 (in
Chinese).
Wu, S., Wu, Z., & Zhang, C. (2019). Rock burst prediction probability
model based on case analysis. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 93, 103069.
Xiao, P., Li, D., Zhao, G., & Liu, H. (2021a). New criterion for the
spalling failure of deep rock engineering based on energy release.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 148,
104943.
Xiao, P., Li, D., Zhao, G., & Liu, M. (2021b). Experimental and
Numerical Analysis of Mode I Fracture Process of Rock by Semi-
Circular Bend Specimen. Mathematics, 9(15), 1769.
Xie, X., Jiang, W., & Guo, J. (2021). Research on rockburst
prediction classification based on GA-XGB model. IEEE Access, 9,
83993–84020.
Xue, Y., Bai, C., Qiu, D., Kong, F., & Li, Z. (2020). Predicting rockburst
with database using particle swarm optimization and extreme learning
machine. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 98, 103287.
Xue, Y., Li, Z., Li, S., Qiu, D., Tao, Y., Wang, L., Yang, W., & Zhang, K.
(2019). Prediction of rock burst in underground caverns based on
rough set and extensible comprehensive evaluation. Bulletin of Engi-
neering Geology and the Environment, 78(1), 417–429.
Yin, X., Liu, Q., Pan, Y., Huang, X., Wu, J., & Wang, X. (2021). Strength
of Stacking Technique of Ensemble Learning in Rockburst Prediction
with Imbalanced Data: Comparison of Eight Single and Ensemble
Models. Natural Resources Research, 30(2), 1795–1815.
Zhang, M. (2021). Prediction of rockburst hazard based on particle swarm
algorithm and neural network. Neural Computing and Applications,
1–11.
Zhang, Q., Hu, W., Liu, Z., & Tan, J. (2020a). TBM performance
prediction with Bayesian optimization and automated machine learn-
ing. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 103, 103493.
14 D. Li et al. / Underground Space 6 (2021) 1–14

Zhang, J., Wang, Y., Sun, Y., & Li, G. (2020b). Strength of ensemble
learning in multiclass classification of rockburst intensity. International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 44(13),
1833–1853.
Zhou, J., Guo, H., Koopialipoor, M., Jahed Armaghani, D., & Tahir, M.
M. (2021a). Investigating the effective parameters on the risk levels of
rockburst phenomena by developing a hybrid heuristic algorithm.
Engineering with Computers, 37(3), 1679–1694.
Zhou, J., Huang, S., Wang, M., & Qiu, Y. (2021b). Performance
evaluation of hybrid GA–SVM and GWO–SVM models to predict
earthquake-induced liquefaction potential of soil: A multi-dataset
investigation. Engineering with Computers, 1–19. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00366-021-01418-3.
Zhou, J., Koopialipoor, M., Li, E., & Armaghani, D. J. (2020). Prediction
of rockburst risk in underground projects developing a neuro-bee
intelligent system. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment,
79(8), 4265–4279.
Zhou, J., Li, X., & Mitri, H. S. (2016). Classification of rockburst in
underground projects: Comparison of ten supervised learning meth-
ods. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 30(5), 04016003.
Zhou, J., Li, X., & Mitri, H. S. (2018). Evaluation Method of Rockburst:
State-of-the-art Literature Review. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 81, 632–659.
Zhou, J., Li, X., & Shi, X. (2012). Long-term prediction model of
rockburst in underground openings using heuristic algorithms and
support vector machines. Safety Science, 50(4), 629–644.
Zhou, J., Qiu, Y., Khandelwal, M., Zhu, S., & Zhang, X. (2021c).
Developing a hybrid model of Jaya algorithm-based extreme gradient
boosting machine to estimate blast-induced ground vibrations. Inter-
national Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 145, 104856.
Zhou, J., Qiu, Y., Zhu, S., Armaghani, D. J., Khandelwal, M., &
Mohamad, E. T. (2021d). Estimation of the TBM advance rate under
hard rock conditions using XGBoost and Bayesian optimization.
Underground Space, 6(5), 506–515.
Zhou, J., Zhu, S. L., Qiu, Y. G., Armaghani, D. J., Zhou, A. N., & Yong,
W. X. (2022). Predicting tunnel squeezing using support vector
machine optimized by whale optimization algorithm. Acta Geotech,
1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-022-01450-7.

14
Please cite this article as: D. Li, Z. Liu, P. Xiao et al., Intelligent rockburst prediction model with sample category balance using feedforward neural
network and Bayesian optimization, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.009