Multi-Objective Automated Machine Learning for Inversion of Mesoscopic Parameters in Discrete Element Contact Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate calibration of mesoscopic contact model parameters is essential for ensuring the reliability of Particle Flow Code in Three Dimensions (PFC3D) simulations in geotechnical engineering. Trial-and-error approaches are often used to determine the parameters of the contact model, but they are time-consuming, labor-intensive, and offer no guarantee of parameter validity or simulation credibility. Although conventional machine learning techniques have been applied to invert the contact model parameters, they are hampered by the difficulty of selecting the optimal hyperparameters and, in some cases, insufficient data, which limits both the predictive accuracy and robustness. In this study, a total of 361 PFC3D uniaxial compression simulations using a linear parallel bond model with varied mesoscopic parameters were generated to capture a wide range of rock and geotechnical material behaviors. From each stress–strain curve, eight characteristic points were extracted as inputs to a multi-objective Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) model designed to invert three key mesoscopic parameters, i.e., the elastic modulus (E), stiffness ratio (ks/kn), and degraded elastic modulus (Ed). The developed AutoML model, comprising two hidden layers of 256 and 32 neurons with ReLU activation function, achieved coefficients of determination (R2) of 0.992, 0.710, and 0.521 for E, ks/kn, and Ed, respectively, demonstrating acceptable predictive accuracy and generalizability. The multi-objective AutoML model was also applied to invert the parameters from three independent uniaxial compression tests on rock-like materials to validate its practical performance. The close match between the experimental and numerically simulated stress–strain curves confirmed the model’s reliability for mesoscopic parameter inversion in PFC3D.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".