Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 63 references

Identifying Optimal Regression Models For DEM Simulation Datasets

T0 review · 3 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Histogram-based gradient boosting is the best surrogate among 16 regression models for tabular DEM data, selected by k-fold cross-validation.

desk verdict The review copy is the wrong paper—judged on the abstract alone, this is a plausible and useful benchmark, but there is no evidence to verify the central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05308 v2 pith:ZXF6TUDQ submitted 2025-08-07 physics.comp-ph

B. D. Jenkins , A. L. Nicusan , A. Neveu , G. Lumay , F. Francqui , J. P. K. Seville , C. R. K. Windows-Yule This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-ph
keywords DEMsurrogatemodelsregressionk-foldcross-validationhistogram-basedgradientboostingpackingfractiontabulardatametamodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that surrogate model selection for discrete element method (DEM) simulations is often overlooked, leading to suboptimal predictive accuracy and slow evaluations. It proposes a simple k-fold cross-validation framework that practitioners can follow to choose the best regression model for their own tabular DEM datasets. Demonstrating the framework on a dataset of packing fractions measured in a measuring beaker with five varying particle properties, the paper tests 16 models and finds a histogram-based gradient boosting model to be optimal, offering a good fit with acceptable training and inference times. If correct, this gives DEM practitioners a reproducible protocol for picking fast, accurate surrogates for real-time process optimization.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the k-fold cross-validation evaluation protocol applied uniformly across 16 regression model families, with the histogram-based gradient boosting model emerging as the best trade-off between fit quality and computational cost. The framework's transferability rests on this protocol being a reliable arbiter of model quality for tabular DEM data.

What would settle it

Run the same 16-model comparison with k-fold cross-validation on an independent DEM dataset targeting a different quantity (e.g., discharge time, stress, or mixing index) and with a different geometry; if histogram-based gradient boosting is not among the top models, the claimed optimality and framework transferability would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that, on the studied DEM dataset of packing fractions, a histogram-based gradient boosting model outperforms the other 15 candidate regression models when assessed through k-fold cross-validation, balancing predictive accuracy with practical training and inference speed. The paper frames this as a concrete instance of a broader claim: that k-fold cross-validation is an appropriate and effective way to select regression surrogates for tabular DEM data, and that a simple, generalizable framework built around it can help readers identify the optimal model for their own simulation datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's generality rests on a single dataset of packing fractions measured in one simple beaker geometry, so the optimal model choice may not transfer to other DEM regression tasks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Practitioners can use the proposed k-fold cross-validation protocol to reproducibly select surrogate regression models for their own DEM datasets, avoiding defaulting to suboptimal choices.
  • For tabular DEM regression tasks similar to the packing-fraction example, histogram-based gradient boosting appears to be a strong default candidate, offering good accuracy without excessive training or inference cost.
  • Adopting such a selection framework could make real-time evaluations of DEM-based processes more feasible by ensuring the surrogate model used is actually well-suited to the data.
  • The comparison of 16 models highlights that model choice materially affects predictive performance, reinforcing that model selection deserves explicit attention in particle technology research.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I infer that the success of histogram-based gradient boosting on this dataset likely reflects its ability to capture interactions among the five varied particle properties without heavy tuning, but the paper does not isolate this mechanism directly.
  • I infer that the framework's generality would be strengthened by demonstrations on additional DEM datasets with different target quantities and geometries; the current single-dataset demonstration leaves open how far the recommendation transfers.
  • I infer that the protocol could be extended to classification tasks or to DEM datasets with spatial or time-series structure, though the paper only addresses tabular regression.
  • I infer that the optimal model choice may shift with dataset size, feature count, or the cost ratio of training vs. inference, so practitioners should treat the HGBM result as a starting point, not a universal answer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript as supplied is internally inconsistent. The abstract (arXiv:2508.05308, physics.comp-ph) announces a study of regression surrogates for discrete-element-method (DEM) datasets: a k-fold cross-validation framework, a DEM packing-fraction dataset with five varying particle properties, a comparison of 16 regression models, and the conclusion that a histogram-based gradient boosting model is optimal. However, the full text of the submission is a different paper (arXiv:2508.05307v1, cs.CV), titled "CoCA ViT: Compact Vision Transformer with Robust Global Coordination," which describes a vision transformer architecture, ImageNet classification, COCO detection, and ADE20K segmentation. No DEM dataset, no list of the 16 models, no k-fold protocol, no hyperparameters, no error bars, no code, and no reproducibility artifacts appear anywhere in the submitted text. The central claim of the abstract is therefore entirely unsupported by the submitted manuscript.

Significance. If the DEM-regression study described in the abstract were actually presented and correct, the practical contribution would be useful: a reusable model-selection workflow for tabular DEM surrogate modeling, with a concrete recommendation (histogram-based gradient boosting) on a packing-fraction dataset. However, none of that content is present in the manuscript text under review. The supplied body instead reports a computer-vision architecture with ImageNet results. Consequently, the claimed significance cannot be evaluated, and the manuscript in its current form contains no falsifiable evidence for its stated conclusions. It is also not reproducible from the submitted materials.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract vs. Full Text (arXiv footer line: arXiv:2508.05307v1 [cs.CV])] The abstract and the full text are different papers. The abstract (arXiv:2508.05308, physics.comp-ph) claims a DEM regression benchmark with 16 models, k-fold cross-validation, and an optimal histogram-based gradient boosting model; the full text is "CoCA ViT: Compact Vision Transformer with Robust Global Coordination," an image-classification paper. None of the claimed DEM content appears. This is a load-bearing mismatch: the manuscript provides no methods, dataset description, model list, results tables, or code for its stated central claim. The central assertion is therefore unsupported in the submitted text.
  2. [Full Text (Sections 1-5, Tables 1-2)] The full text contains only vision experiments: ImageNet-1K top-1 accuracy, ImageNet-Real, ImageNet-V2, ImageNet-A/R, COCO mAP, and ADE20K mIOU. There is no packing-fraction dataset, no list of the 16 regression models, no k-fold cross-validation description, no hyperparameter settings, no training/inference timings for tabular surrogates, and no error bars or variance estimates. The reader's report and the abstract cannot be cross-checked against any supporting evidence in the manuscript.
  3. [Entire submission] Even under a generous reading where the abstract is the intended contribution, the submission is not reviewable as a physics.comp-ph paper: it contains no reproducibility artifacts, no dataset description (size, feature ranges, simulation parameters), no model-selection protocol details beyond the phrase "k-fold cross-validation," and no definition of "optimal" (accuracy vs. training/inference time trade-off). The absence of all of these is not a presentation issue but a complete evidentiary gap for the central claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Title and metadata] The title, abstract, and arXiv identifier in the header conflict with the full text's title and arXiv identifier. This needs resolution before any substantive review can occur.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identified; the abstract's empirical benchmark claim is not a derivation, and the supplied full text is a different paper with no relevant derivation chain to examine.

full rationale

The abstract's central claim is an empirical benchmarking result: among 16 regression models evaluated by k-fold cross-validation on a DEM packing-fraction dataset, a histogram-based gradient boosting model was found optimal. This is a data-driven claim, not a derivation, and none of the enumerated circularity patterns apply. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction; no self-citation carries a load-bearing argument; no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work; no ansatz is smuggled in via citation; and no known result is renamed. The supplied full text is not the same paper: it carries the arXiv footer 'arXiv:2508.05307v1 [cs.CV]' and presents CoCA ViT, a vision transformer with ImageNet experiments, so the DEM dataset, the 16-model comparison, and the k-fold protocol are not present to inspect for equation-level reduction. The only circularity-adjacent concern is winner's curse — selecting the best of 16 models using the same CV metric that produced the ranking — but that is a statistical selection issue, not a definitional equivalence, and there is no quoted equation or fitted constant to exhibit the specific reduction required by the hard rules. The full-text/abstract mismatch is a serious correctness and reproducibility concern, but it is not circularity. Therefore the honest non-finding is appropriate: no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review with a body mismatch: the empirical claims rely on the authors' unspecified k-fold configuration, the unstated accuracy-speed trade-off defining 'optimal', and the representativeness of one DEM dataset. No invented entities (new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities) are introduced by the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • Cross-validation fold count and model hyperparameters = not reported in abstract
    The abstract prescribes k-fold cross-validation across 16 models but does not report the number of folds, the hyperparameter search, or the tuning protocol. The optimality conclusion depends on these choices.
  • Accuracy versus speed definition of 'optimal' = not reported in abstract
    The abstract declares the winning model 'provides a good fit with acceptable training and inference times'. The trade-off weighting between fit quality and speed is chosen by hand and is not stated.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Cross-validated accuracy is a valid proxy for real-time surrogate performance in DEM applications.
    The framework's selection logic rests on k-fold CV error predicting deployed utility; the abstract states the method but supplies no external validation that CV ranking matches real-time industrial usefulness.
  • domain assumption The single packing-fraction dataset is representative of tabular DEM regression tasks.
    The abstract generalizes from one demonstration dataset (packing fractions in a simple measuring beaker, five varied particle properties) to 'the optimal model for their data' for readers. Transferability is assumed, not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying Optimal Regression Models For DEM Simulation Datasets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZXF6TUDQ

@misc{pith2026250805308,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying Optimal Regression Models For DEM Simulation Datasets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZXF6TUDQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05308}
}
read the original abstract

Developing fast regression models (surrogate/metamodels) from DEM data is key for practical industrial application to allow real-time evaluations. However, benchmarking different models is often overlooked in particle technology for regression tasks, as model selection is frequently not the primary research focus. This can lead to the use of suboptimal models, resulting in subpar predictive accuracy, slow evaluations, or poor generalisation, hindering effective real-time decision-making and process optimisation. In this work, we discuss applying k-fold cross-validation to assess regression models for tabular DEM datasets and propose a simple framework for readers to follow to find the optimal model for their data. An example demonstrates its application to a DEM dataset of packing fractions measured in a simple measuring beaker with varying inter-particle properties, namely, average particle diameter, coefficient of restitution, coefficient of sliding friction, coefficient of rolling resistance, and cohesive energy density. Out of 16 different models tested, a histogram-based gradient boosting model was found to be optimal, providing a good fit with acceptable training and inference times.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  3. [3]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  4. [4]

    C. R. K. Windows-Yule, D. R. Tunuguntla, D. J. Parker, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-015-0083-2 Numerical modelling of granular flows: a reality check , Computational Particle Mechanics 3 (3) (2016) 311--332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-015-0083-2 doi:10.1007/s40571-015-0083-2 . ://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-015-0083-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s40571-015-0083-2 2016

  5. [5]

    M. P. Fransen, M. Langelaar, D. L. Schott, Application of DEM-based metamodels in bulk handling equipment design: Methodology and DEM case study , Powder Technology 393 (2021) 205--218. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POWTEC.2021.07.048 doi:10.1016/J.POWTEC.2021.07.048

    work page doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2021.07.048 2021

  6. [6]

    Kalay, M

    E. Kalay, M. E. Bo g o c lu, B. Bolat, Mass flow rate prediction of screw conveyor using artificial neural network method , Powder Technology 408 (2022) 117757. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POWTEC.2022.117757 doi:10.1016/J.POWTEC.2022.117757

    work page arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Jadidi, M

    B. Jadidi, M. Ebrahimi, F. Ein-Mozaffari, A. Lohi, Analysis of cohesive particles mixing behavior in a twin-paddle blender: DEM and machine learning applications , Particuology 90 (2024) 350--363. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PARTIC.2023.12.010 doi:10.1016/J.PARTIC.2023.12.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.partic.2023.12.010 2024

  8. [8]

    Z. Liao, Y. Yang, C. Sun, R. Wu, Z. Duan, Y. Wang, X. Li, J. Xu, Image-based prediction of granular flow behaviors in a wedge-shaped hopper by combing DEM and deep learning methods , Powder Technology 383 (2021) 159--166. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POWTEC.2021.01.041 doi:10.1016/J.POWTEC.2021.01.041

    work page doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2021.01.041 2021

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    X. Cui, D. Adebayo, H. Zhang, M. Howarth, A. Anderson, T. Olopade, K. Salami, S. Farooq, Simulation of granular flows and machine learning in food processing , Frontiers in Food Science and Technology 4 (12 2024). https://doi.org/10.3389/frfst.2024.1491396 doi:10.3389/frfst.20...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Kumar, C

    R. Kumar, C. M. Patel, A. K. Jana, S. R. Gopireddy, Prediction of hopper discharge rate using combined discrete element method and artificial neural network , Advanced Powder Technology 29 (11) (2018) 2822--2834. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APT.2018.08.002 doi:10.1016/J.APT.2018.08.002

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Richter, F

    C. Richter, F. Will, Introducing Metamodel-Based Global Calibration of Material-Specific Simulation Parameters for Discrete Element Method , Minerals 11 (8) (2021) 848. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11080848 doi:10.3390/min11080848

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Iraz \' a bal, F

    J. Iraz \' a bal, F. Salazar, D. J. Vicente, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-022-00550-1 A methodology for calibrating parameters in discrete element models based on machine learning surrogates , Computational Particle Mechanics (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-022-00550-...

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Rackl, K

    M. Rackl, K. J. Hanley, A methodical calibration procedure for discrete element models , Powder Technology 307 (2017) 73--83. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POWTEC.2016.11.048 doi:10.1016/J.POWTEC.2016.11.048

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    A. Hadi, Y. Pang, D. Schott, Systematic DEM calibration of two-component mixtures using AI-accelerated surrogate models , Powder Technology 464 (2025) 121190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2025.121190 doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2025.121190

    2025

  7. [15]

    Richter, T

    C. Richter, T. R \" o ler, G. Kunze, A. Katterfeld, F. Will, Development of a standard calibration procedure for the DEM parameters of cohesionless bulk materials – Part II: Efficient optimization-based calibration , Powder Technology 360 (2020) 967--976. https://doi.org/10.10...

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Ben Turkia, D

    S. Ben Turkia, D. N. Wilke, P. Pizette, N. Govender, N.-E. Abriak, Benefits of virtual calibration for discrete element parameter estimation from bulk experiments , Granular Matter 21 (4) (2019) 110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10035-019-0962-y doi:10.1007/s10035-019-0962-y

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    A. V. Boikov, R. V. Savelev, V. A. Payor, DEM Calibration Approach: Random Forest , Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1118 (2018) 012009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1118/1/012009 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1118/1/012009

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Benvenuti, C

    L. Benvenuti, C. Kloss, S. Pirker, Identification of DEM simulation parameters by Artificial Neural Networks and bulk experiments , Powder Technology 291 (2016) 456--465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2016.01.003 doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2016.01.003

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    M. P. Fransen, M. Langelaar, D. L. Schott, Including stochastics in metamodel-based DEM model calibration , Powder Technology 406 (2022) 117400. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POWTEC.2022.117400 doi:10.1016/J.POWTEC.2022.117400

    2022

  12. [20]

    Y. S. Abu-Mostafa, M. Magdon-Ismail, H.-T. Lin, Learning From Data , AMLBook, 2012

    2012

  13. [21]

    Zhang, C

    S. Zhang, C. Zhang, Q. Yang, Data preparation for data mining , Applied Artificial Intelligence 17 (5-6) (2003) 375--381. https://doi.org/10.1080/713827180 doi:10.1080/713827180

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    Garc \' i a, S

    S. Garc \' i a, S. Ram \' i rez-Gallego, J. Luengo, J. M. Ben \' i tez, F. Herrera, Big data preprocessing: methods and prospects , Big Data Analytics 1 (1) (2016) 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41044-016-0014-0 doi:10.1186/s41044-016-0014-0

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Ridzuan, W

    F. Ridzuan, W. M. N. Wan Zainon, Diagnostic analysis for outlier detection in big data analytics , Procedia Computer Science 197 (2022) 685--692. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCS.2021.12.189 doi:10.1016/J.PROCS.2021.12.189

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    J. W. Tukey, Exploratory data analysis , Vol. 2, Springer, 1977

    1977

  17. [25]

    Bol \' o n-Canedo, N

    V. Bol \' o n-Canedo, N. S \' a nchez-Maro \ n o, A. Alonso-Betanzos, Recent advances and emerging challenges of feature selection in the context of big data , Knowledge-Based Systems 86 (2015) 33--45. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.KNOSYS.2015.05.014 doi:10.1016/J.KNOSYS.2015.05.014

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Singh, B

    D. Singh, B. Singh, Investigating the impact of data normalization on classification performance , Applied Soft Computing 97 (2020) 105524. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2019.105524 doi:10.1016/J.ASOC.2019.105524

    2020

  19. [27]

    G. H. Dunteman, Principal components analysis , Vol. 69, Sage, 1989

    1989

  20. [28]

    A. L. Nicu s an, K. Windows-Yule, PyMED: Multiphase Materials Exploration via Evolutionary Equation Discovery , URL: https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo 7215239 (2022)

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Stone, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2984809 Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions , Journal of the Royal Statistical Society

    M. Stone, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2984809 Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions , Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 36 (2) (1974) 111--147. ://www.jstor.org/stable/2984809

    1974

  22. [30]

    James, D

    G. James, D. Witten, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, An introduction to statistical learning , no. 1, Springer, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    R. Kohavi, A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection , in: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2, IJCAI'95, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 1995, pp. 1137--1143

    1995

  24. [32]

    Plevris, G

    V. Plevris, G. Solorzano, N. Bakas, M. Ben Seghier, Investigation of performance metrics in regression analysis and machine learning-based prediction models , in: 8th European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering (ECCOMAS 2022), 2022. https://d...

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Miller, T

    C. Miller, T. Portlock, D. M. Nyaga, J. M. O’Sullivan, A review of model evaluation metrics for machine learning in genetics and genomics , Frontiers in Bioinformatics 4 (9 2024). https://doi.org/10.3389/fbinf.2024.1457619 doi:10.3389/fbinf.2024.1457619

    2024

  26. [34]

    Sezer, D

    H. Sezer, D. Werner, J. A. Sykes, N. Bazin, P. Bolton, C. R. Windows-Yule, Exploring the internal dynamics of resonant acoustic mixing using positron emission particle tracking , Chemical Engineering Science 306 (2025) 121166. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CES.2024.121166 doi:10.1...

    2025

  27. [35]

    ://github.com/uob-positron-imaging-centre/PICI-LIGGGHTS

    University of Birmingham Positron Imaging Centre , https://github.com/uob-positron-imaging-centre/PICI-LIGGGHTS UoB Positron Imaging Centre's Improved LIGGGHTS Distribution - PICI-LIGGGHTS-3.8.1 (2022). ://github.com/uob-positron-imaging-centre/PICI-LIGGGHTS

    2022

  28. [36]

    Kloss, C

    C. Kloss, C. Goniva, A. K \" o nig, S. Amberger, S. Pirker, Models, algorithms and validation for opensource DEM and CFD-DEM , Progress in Computational Fluid Dynamics 12 (2012) 140 -- 152. https://doi.org/10.1504/PCFD.2012.047457 doi:10.1504/PCFD.2012.047457

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    C. J. Coetzee, Review: Calibration of the discrete element method , Powder Technology 310 (2017) 104--142

    2017

  30. [38]

    u hrung fester elastischer K \

    H. Hertz, Ueber die Ber \" u hrung fester elastischer K \" o rper. , crll 1882 (92) (1882) 156--171. https://doi.org/10.1515/crll.1882.92.156 doi:10.1515/crll.1882.92.156

    doi

  31. [39]

    R. D. Mindlin, H. Deresiewicz, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4010702 Elastic Spheres in Contact Under Varying Oblique Forces , Journal of Applied Mechanics (1953) 327--344 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4010702 doi:10.1115/1.4010702 . ://doi.org/10.1115/1.4010702

    1953 doi

  32. [40]

    J. Ai, J. F. Chen, J. M. Rotter, J. Y. Ooi, Assessment of rolling resistance models in discrete element simulations , Powder Technology 206 (3) (2011) 269--282. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POWTEC.2010.09.030 doi:10.1016/J.POWTEC.2010.09.030

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    K. L. Johnson, K. Kendall, A. D. Roberts, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspa.1971.0141 Surface energy and the contact of elastic solids , Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 324 (1558) (1971) 301--313. https://...

    1971

  34. [42]

    H rvig, U

    J. H rvig, U. Kleinhans, C. Wieland, H. Spliethoff, A. Jensen, K. S rensen, T. Condra, On the adhesive JKR contact and rolling models for reduced particle stiffness discrete element simulations , Powder Technology 319 (2017) 472--482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2017.07.0...

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Windows-Yule, S

    C. Windows-Yule, S. Benyahia, P. Toson, H. Che, A. L. Nicu s an, Numerical Modelling and Imaging of Industrial-Scale Particulate Systems: A Review of Contemporary Challenges and Solutions , KONA Powder and Particle Journal 42 (0) (2025) 2025007. https://doi.org/10.14356/kona.2...

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    Filzmoser, K

    P. Filzmoser, K. Nordhausen, Robust linear regression for high‐dimensional data: An overview , WIREs Computational Statistics 13 (4) (7 2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.1524 doi:10.1002/wics.1524

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    Grinsztajn, E

    L. Grinsztajn, E. Oyallon, G. Varoquaux, Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on tabular data? (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Natekin, A

    A. Natekin, A. Knoll, Gradient boosting machines, a tutorial , Frontiers in Neurorobotics 7 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2013.00021 doi:10.3389/fnbot.2013.00021

    2013

  39. [47]

    R. E. Schapire, Explaining AdaBoost , in: Empirical Inference, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 37--52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41136-6 \_ 5 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41136-6 \_ 5

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    T. Chen, C. Guestrin, XGBoost , in: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2016, pp. 785--794. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785 doi:10.1145/2939672.2939785

    2016

  41. [49]

    G. Ke, Q. Meng, T. Finley, T. Wang, W. Chen, W. Ma, Q. Ye, T.-Y. Liu, https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/6449f44a102fde848669bdd9eb6b76fa-Paper.pdf LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree , in: I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H....

    2017

  42. [50]

    Y. Song, J. Liang, J. Lu, X. Zhao, An efficient instance selection algorithm for k nearest neighbor regression , Neurocomputing 251 (2017) 26--34. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUCOM.2017.04.018 doi:10.1016/J.NEUCOM.2017.04.018

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    Cortes, V

    C. Cortes, V. Vapnik, Support-vector networks , Machine Learning 20 (3) (1995) 273--297. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994018 doi:10.1007/BF00994018

    1995 doi

  44. [52]

    R. G. Brereton, G. R. Lloyd, Support Vector Machines for classification and regression , The Analyst 135 (2) (2010) 230--267. https://doi.org/10.1039/B918972F doi:10.1039/B918972F

    2010 doi

  45. [53]

    M. W. Gardner, S. R. Dorling, Artificial neural networks (the multilayer perceptron)—a review of applications in the atmospheric sciences , Atmospheric Environment 32 (14-15) (1998) 2627--2636. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(97)00447-0 doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(97)00447-0

    1998 doi

  46. [54]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, E. Duchesnay, http://jmlr.org/papers/v12/pedregosa11a.html Scikit-learn: Machine Learni...

    2011

  47. [55]

    Shwartz-Ziv, A

    R. Shwartz-Ziv, A. Armon, Tabular data: Deep learning is not all you need , Information Fusion 81 (2022) 84--90. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFFUS.2021.11.011 doi:10.1016/J.INFFUS.2021.11.011

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    L. W. Rizkallah, Enhancing the performance of gradient boosting trees on regression problems , Journal of Big Data 12 (1) (2025) 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-025-01071-3 doi:10.1186/s40537-025-01071-3

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    Boldini, F

    D. Boldini, F. Grisoni, D. Kuhn, L. Friedrich, S. A. Sieber, Practical guidelines for the use of gradient boosting for molecular property prediction , Journal of Cheminformatics 15 (1) (2023) 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-023-00743-7 doi:10.1186/s13321-023-00743-7

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    Alwosheel, S

    A. Alwosheel, S. van Cranenburgh, C. G. Chorus, Is your dataset big enough? Sample size requirements when using artificial neural networks for discrete choice analysis , Journal of Choice Modelling 28 (2018) 167--182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2018.07.002 doi:10.1016/j.jo...

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    Akiba, S

    T. Akiba, S. Sano, T. Yanase, T. Ohta, M. Koyama, Optuna , in: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2019, pp. 2623--2631. https://doi.org/10.1145/3292500.3330701 doi:10.1145/3292500.3330701

    2019

  52. [60]

    Lundberg, S.-I

    S. Lundberg, S.-I. Lee, https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07874 A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions (2017). ://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07874

    2017 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Saker, M

    A. Saker, M. G. Cares-Pacheco, P. Marchal, V. Falk, Powders flowability assessment in granular compaction: What about the consistency of Hausner ratio? , Powder Technology 354 (2019) 52--63. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POWTEC.2019.05.032 doi:10.1016/J.POWTEC.2019.05.032

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    Rhodes, J

    M. Rhodes, J. Seville, Introduction to Particle Technology , 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, London, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    Seville, C.-Y

    J. Seville, C.-Y. Wu, Mechanics of Bulk Solids , Particle Technology and Engineering (2016) 135--159 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-098337-0.00007-2 doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-098337-0.00007-2

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.