MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412437103 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2025-0201

A physics-guided symbolic regression framework for efficient and interpretable sand constitutive modeling

2025· article· en· W4412437103 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Yi Zhu, Su Chen, Xiaojun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringRegression analysisConstitutive equationRegressionGeologyComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsStatisticsStructural engineeringMachine learningFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data-driven constitutive modeling for geomaterials encounters significant challenges in achieving a balance among interpretability, physical consistency, and computational efficiency. Traditional symbolic regression often struggles with extensive search spaces, slow convergence rates, and insufficient physical constraints, which limits its applicability to complex granular materials such as sands. In this context, we propose a framework for knowledge-based physically guided symbolic regression (KB-phgSR), which seamlessly integrates classical constitutive models with data-driven optimization techniques. The framework employs a two-stage approach: initially distilling Pareto-optimal equations from established physical models to establish physically consistent solutions; subsequently refining these equations using experimental data while ensuring dimensional balance and adherence to mechanical boundary conditions. Validated against triaxial tests conducted on Toyoura and Ottawa sands under various drainage conditions, KB-phgSR demonstrates enhanced convergence speed and robustness in capturing the intricate behaviors of sand. The optimized equations exhibit both high accuracy and interpretability while conforming to fundamental elastoplastic principles. By effectively combining physics-based priors with data-driven discovery methods, this framework advances constitutive modeling towards improved generalizability and engineering efficacy, positioning it as a paradigm-shifting tool with transformative potential in geomechanics and beyond.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→