Machine learning study demonstrates accurate prediction of clay compressibility using gradient boosting models, indicating moisture and liquidity index dictate regional soil deformation risks.
Accurate prediction of the coefficient of compressibility (a v ) for regional clays remains a fundamental challenge in geotechnical engineering. Focusing on Chengdu clays, this study proposes a machine learning framework that integrates physically constrained data augmentation, differentiated hyperparameter optimization, and interpretability analysis. Based on 338 experimental datasets, a hybrid optimization strategy (Grid Search + Bayesian Optimization) is employed to ensure fair model comparison. The statistical significance of performance differences is rigorously validated using 30 iterations of Monte Carlo cross-validation combined with paired t-tests. Generalization capability is assessed via spatial grouping cross-validation, accompanied by Bootstrap-based uncertainty quantification. Results demonstrate that LightGBM achieves the highest predictive accuracy (test R 2 = 0.8817), significantly outperforming comparison models (p < 0.05). XGBoost exhibits comparable accuracy (R 2 = 0.8805), while Random Forest demonstrates superior robustness in spatial cross-validation (R 2 = 0.7273). Multi-model analysis consistently identifies water content and liquidity index as the dominant factors governing a v , with cumulative contribution exceeding 95%. SHAP analysis confirms both factors exhibit monotonically positive effects with approximate additivity. Tree-based models yield Bootstrap confidence intervals with mean widths ranging from 0.0526 to 0.0653 MPa -1 , providing essential risk references for engineering practice. This study not only delivers a reliable predictive tool for a v of Chengdu clays but also establishes a reproducible, physically guided, and statistically rigorous paradigm for regional geotechnical machine learning research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: