Objective: The objective of this study was to map and critically synthesize empirical evidence on ML/AI applications across surface mining unit operations, and to characterize models, validation practices, and evidence gaps. Eligibility criteria: Our eligibility criteria comprised peer-reviewed studies (2020–2025) applying ML/AI to surface mining activities, training/validating models on empirical datasets, and reporting quantitative performance metrics. Information sources: Scopus, ScienceDirect, Dimensions, and Web of Science were our information sources, last searched December 2025 and supplemented by website and citation snowballing. Risk of bias: Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted domain-based approach based on PROBAST, used to interpret findings without excluding studies. Synthesis method: Our research employed a narrative synthesis (no meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in datasets, algorithms, contexts, and metrics), grouped by application domain. Results: From 5317 records, 57 studies were included, concentrated in blasting (43), followed by load and haul (6), post-dismantling management (4), extraction (2), and overall exploitation (2). Studies predominantly reported statistical metrics (e.g., R2, RMSE, and MAE), with limited operational performance indicators; validation was frequently site-specific. Dataset sizes were not reported consistently across studies. Limitations: This study’s limitations were database coverage, restricted timeframe, and incomplete reporting (e.g., software/tooling). Conclusions: ML/AI shows strong potential, especially in blasting, but scalable deployment is constrained by site specificity, inconsistent reporting, and heterogeneous validation; standardized reporting and operational indicators are priorities. Registration: The systematic review protocol was registered in OSF with DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/5UMKB. Funding: EU Erasmus+ STRIM project (1010832727).
Reis et al. (Fri,) studied this question.