Machine learning-based optimal design of fibrillar adhesives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fibrillar adhesion, observed in animals like beetles, spiders and geckos, relies on nanoscopic or microscopic fibrils to enhance surface adhesion via 'contact splitting'. This concept has inspired engineering applications across robotics, transportation and medicine. Recent studies suggest that functional grading of fibril properties can improve adhesion, but this is a complex design challenge that has only been explored in simplified geometries. While machine learning (ML) has gained traction in adhesive design, no previous attempts have targeted fibril-array scale optimization. In this study, we propose an ML-based tool that optimizes the distribution of fibril compliance to maximize adhesive strength. Our tool, featuring two neural networks (NNs), recovers previous design results for simple geometries and introduces novel solutions for complex configurations. The predictor NN estimates adhesive strength based on random compliance distributions, while the designer NN optimizes compliance distribution to achieve maximum strength using gradient-based optimization. This method significantly reduces test error and accelerates the optimization process, offering a high-performance solution for designing fibrillar adhesives and micro-architected materials aimed at fracture resistance by achieving equal load sharing.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".