## 3 Model Building and Algorithm Design
### Prediction Algorithm Design
\[\mathrm{h}_{\omega}(\mathrm{x})=[1+\exp(-8.386-0.3712\mathrm{x}_{1}-0.398 \mathrm{x}_{2}-0.047\mathrm{x}_{3}+5.8\mathrm{x}_{4}+6.786\mathrm{x}_{5}+0.648 \mathrm{x}_{6}+1.61\mathrm{x}_{7}-2.315\mathrm{x}_{8})]^{-1} \tag{23}\]

In the formula, \(\mathrm{x}_{1}\) represents the coal seam thickness, \(\mathrm{x}_{2}\) represents the dip angle of the coal seam, \(\mathrm{x}_{3}\) represents the form of hydraulic support, \(\mathrm{x}_{4}\) represents the support resistance, \(\mathrm{x}_{5}\) represents the microseismic energy, \(\mathrm{x}_{6}\) represents the borehole stress, \(\mathrm{x}_{7}\) represents the initial pressure step of the old roof, and \(\mathrm{x}_{8}\) represents the periodic pressure step of the old roof. The predicted value interval obtained using Formula (23) is [0,1]. When its value is greater than 0.5, it is considered that the mine pressure value exceeds the standard and there is danger. There are five working faces in C Coal Mine. In this study, 50 pieces of ore pressure monitoring data were selected from each working face to verify the regression model after fitting. We compared the predicted results with the actual situation, as shown in Figure 3.

In the figures, the black square represents the measured value, and its value is 0 or 1. A value of 0 indicates that the mine pressure value does not exceed the standard and there is no danger; a value of 1 indicates that the mine pressure value exceeds the standard and there is danger. The red circle represents the predicted value, which is calculated using the mine pressure hazard prediction model. The value interval is [0,1]. A predicted value greater than 0.5 indicates that the mine pressure is dangerous, and a predicted value less than 0.5 indicates that the mine pressure is not dangerous. The predicted and measured values of the five working surfaces were compared and analyzed statistically. The predicatio \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline
**Evaluation** & **Coal** & **Dip** & **Form of** & **Support** & **MicroseismicBorehole** & **Initial** & **Periodic** & **Partial** \\
**Index** & **Sear** & **Angle of** & **Oal** & **Hyal-** & **Resis-** & **Energy** & **Stress** & **Step of** & **Step of** \\
**Mass** & **Sear** & **Sear** & **Support** & **tance** & & **Old Roof** & **Old Roof** & **Coefficient** \\ \hline
0.3712 & 0.398 & 0.047 & \(-5.8\) & \(-6.78\) & \(-0.648\) & \(-1.61\) & 2.315 & 8.386 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Evaluation index weight calculation results. Figure 3: _Cont._

According to Table 3 and Formulas (19)-(22), the accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score of the total mine pressure hazard prediction model based on logistic regression are 96%, 88.89%, 92.31%, and 0.91, respectively. The results of the four comprehensive

Figure 3: (**a**) Working face 1 comparison of predicted and measured values of the prediction model. (**b**) Working face 2 comparison of predicted and measured values of the prediction model. (**c**) Working face 3 comparison of predicted and measured values of the prediction model. (**d**) Working face 4 comparison of predicted and measured values of the prediction model. (**e**) Working face 5 comparison of predicted and measured values of the prediction model. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Condition**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Danger**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**No Danger**} & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Danger and** \\ **Predicted (TP)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Dangerous** \\ **but Not** \\ **Predicted (FN)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{c} **No Danger** \\ **Predicted (TN)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **No Danger** \\ **but Predicted \\ **(FP)** \\ \end{tabular}