A framework for estimating the matric suction in unsaturated soils using multiple artificial intelligence techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Implementation of the state‐of‐the‐art understanding of the mechanics of unsaturated soils into geotechnical engineering practice is partly limited due to the lack of quick, reliable, and economical techniques for matric suction measurement. Matric suction is one of the key stress state variables that significantly influences the hydro‐mechanical behavior of unsaturated soils. In this paper, to address this objective, two artificial intelligence (AI) models were developed for estimating matric suction in unsaturated soils based on the particle swarm optimization support vector regression (PSO‐SVR) and multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS) algorithms. The results suggest that both these models can reasonably estimate matric suction. Compared to the MARS model, the PSO‐SVR model can achieve higher accuracy. Nonetheless, the MARS model facilitates the sensitivity analysis and the selection of essential inputs. A novel integrated framework is proposed and validated, leveraging the strengths, and alleviating the limitations of the PSO‐SVR and MARS algorithms for reliable and rapid estimation of matric suction in the range of 0–1500 kPa for low plastic soils (0 < Ip ≤ 7). Six inputs are required to use this model successfully; some can be measured using conventional laboratory tests, and others can be calculated from mass‐volume relationships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".