ArticleScientific reports2025
Predicting soil compaction parameters in expansive soils using advanced machine learning models: a comparative study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laboratory investigation of wetting induced deformation in unsaturated expansive soil during shield tunnelling in Yangzhou, China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Performance evaluation of weak kaolin soils with waste-derived plastic granular inclusions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Shear strength, compressibility, and consolidation behaviour of expansive clay soil stabilized with lime and silica fume.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Expansive soils present substantial challenges for construction projects, particularly in arid regions where their swelling and shrinking behavior can result in structural damage. This research conducted an in-depth analysis of 195 soil samples, investigating six crucial factors, including clay content, liquid and plastic limit, specific gravity, plasticity index, and swell percentage, influencing soil compaction. The study used five computational models to predict optimal water content and maximum dry density. Among the models, XG-Boost exhibited exceptional performance with high predictive accuracy, scoring 0.941 and 0.912 for water content and density, respectively. Random Forest method also performed well, whereas Long Short-Term Memory Network (LSTMN) and k-Nearest Neighbors methods achieved moderate success. Detailed performance metrics, including correlation coefficients (r), mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), relative root mean squared error (RRMSE), and performance index (PI), were analyzed for each model across the training, testing, and validation datasets. XG-Boost consistently outperformed other models, demonstrating its robust and reliable predictive power. The analysis of absolute error highlighted the accuracy and consistency of XG-Boost and Random Forest in predicting the maximum dry density.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.