Skip to content

A Large Open Multi-Energy Corpus of Soil Compaction Tests, with Machine-Learning Baselines

Sep 2026 · 0 citations · 1 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

A corpus without compaction limits is released, which holds 2,854 laboratory compaction tests from six public sources, across 162 provenance groups and four Proctor energy levels, with fines from 1.5 to 100%.

Abstract

Every engineered fill is specified by a maximum dry density and an optimum moisture content. Each determination needs a full Proctor test. Published correlations rest on one to four hundred specimens, usually from one laboratory at one compactive energy, and are seldom released. This paper releases a corpus without those limits. It holds 2,854 laboratory compaction tests from six public sources, across 162 provenance groups and four Proctor energy levels, with fines from 1.5 to 100%. Every record is audited to the Proctor method its source names, and no energy is inferred. Screening on the zero-air-voids condition removed 11.8% of harmonised records, and 5.7% of those with a measured specific gravity. A material share of published compaction data is physically impossible. The optimum degree of saturation over the corpus is 0.815 at a coefficient of variation of 11%. That is a baseline, not a constant. Both parameters are then estimated from one classification suite and the compaction standard. A tabular foundation model reaches R2 0.824 for density and 0.784 for water content under random folds. It reaches 0.727 and 0.696 with folds drawn around provenance, and 0.520 and 0.614 with a whole source held out. Compactive energy is negligible marginally yet decisive conditionally. Density on the 66 modified-Proctor records is predicted at R2 0.740 with it and -0.651 without. Symbolic regression yields closed forms coupled through a phase relation. No predicted pair can then exceed the zero-air-voids line. The predictions are for screening, not acceptance.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Conference Open access Jun 2018

Gibson Env: Real-World Perception for Embodied Agents

This paper investigates developing real-world perception for active agents, proposes Gibson Environment for this purpose, and showcases a set of perceptual tasks learned therein.

F. Xia, Amir Zamir, Zhi-Yang He et al. · 1,069 citations · ⚡112
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54

Diffusion models as plug-and-play priors

The possibility of inferring high-dimensional data inference in a model that consists of a prior and an auxiliary differentiable constraint given some additional information is considered, thereby allowing a range of potential applications in adapting models to new domains and tasks.

Alexandros Graikos, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, N. Jojic et al. · 316 citations · ⚡15

Trajectory Balance: Improved Credit Assignment in GFlowNets

It is proved that any global minimizer of the trajectory balance objective can define a policy that samples exactly from the target distribution, and empirically demonstrate the benefits of the trajectories balance objective for GFlowNet convergence, diversity of generated samples, and robustness to long action sequenc...

Esmeralda S. Whitammer, Moksh Jain, Emmanuel Bengio et al. · 302 citations · ⚡60

KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization

This work proposes a HALO that directly maximizes the utility of generations instead of maximizing the log-likelihood of preferences, and suggests that the best loss depends on the inductive biases most appropriate for a given setting, an oft-overlooked consideration.

Kawin Ethayarajh, Winnie Xu, Niklas Muennighoff et al. · 195 citations · ⚡28

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Q&A: How AI came to model the “messy” human mind

Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.