pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.19555 · v1 · pith:OUC5273Bnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · ⚛️ physics.class-ph

Automated Discovery of Metainterfaces with Tailored Friction Laws

Li Fu (LTDS) , Djibril Gabriel Kashala (LTDS) , D. Dalmas (LTDS) , J Scheibert (LTDS) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 02:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.class-ph
keywords metainterfacesfriction lawsinverse designasperity topographynumerical optimizationtribologydry frictioncontact mechanics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Numerical optimization discovers asperity topographies that produce any specified friction law.

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

The paper introduces a numerical-optimisation-based inverse design framework to automatically discover metainterfaces with user-specified relationships between friction and normal force. It moves beyond human intuition by exploring large spaces of possible asperity topographies to achieve constant friction coefficients, power-law exponents between 2/3 and 1.35, and bilinear laws with a shallower second segment. Selected designs are validated through experiments. A sympathetic reader would care because reliable control of dry friction could enable new performance in robotics, haptics, and tribological components where force response must match application needs.

Core claim

We introduce a numerical-optimisation-based inverse design framework that automatically discovers new metainterfaces from engineered asperity-based topographies satisfying specified relationships between friction and normal forces. Illustrations include expansion of achievable friction coefficients at constant material pairs, power-law friction laws with arbitrary exponents between 2/3 and 1.35, and bilinear laws with smaller slope in the second segment than the first. Relevant cases are validated experimentally. By enabling systematic exploration of large parameter spaces, the framework offers design solutions for any physically possible friction law and provides insights into the link from

What carries the argument

Numerical optimisation inverse-design framework that searches over parameters of asperity topographies to match a target friction-normal-force relationship.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical model of asperity-based contact mechanics inside the optimizer accurately predicts the macroscopic friction force once the discovered topography is physically fabricated and tested.

What would settle it

Fabricate one of the optimized metainterfaces and measure its friction versus normal force curve; a substantial deviation from the target law would show the framework does not reliably translate to real surfaces.

read the original abstract

Providing dry solid contacts with on-demand macroscale frictional behaviour remains a formidable challenge in tribology, haptics or robotics. Metainterfaces created from surfaces with engineered asperity-based topographies can achieve such friction control. However, only few friction behaviours were demonstrated because suitable topographies were identified based on human intuition. Here, we introduce a numerical-optimisation-based inverse design framework to automatically discover new metainterfaces satisfying specified relationships between friction and normal forces (friction law). To illustrate the framework's versatility, we first expand the range of achievable friction coefficients at a constant material pair; we next unlock power-law friction laws with arbitrary exponents between 2/3 and 1.35; we then achieve bilinear laws with a smaller slope in the second segment than in the first. We validate relevant cases experimentally. By enabling systematic exploration of large parameter spaces, not limited to topography but potentially incorporating the individual asperities' bulk material or surface physicochemistry, our automated framework offers design solutions for any physically possible friction law. It also provides new insights into the elusive relationship between local interfacial properties and macroscopic friction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a numerical-optimization-based inverse design framework to automatically discover asperity-based metainterface topographies that realize user-specified friction laws (constant coefficients, power laws with exponents 2/3–1.35, and bilinear segments). It illustrates the approach via simulations that expand achievable behaviors beyond prior intuition-driven examples and reports experimental validation for relevant cases. The central claim is that systematic exploration of large parameter spaces (initially topography, potentially including material properties) yields design solutions for any physically possible friction law and provides new local-to-macroscopic insights.

Significance. If the numerical contact-mechanics model inside the optimizer faithfully predicts macroscopic friction for fabricated surfaces across the targeted laws, the work would be significant for tribology, haptics, and robotics. It replaces ad-hoc topography selection with an automated, extensible inverse-design tool and demonstrates concrete new behaviors (e.g., power-law exponents outside previously reported ranges and bilinear laws with reduced second-segment slope). The experimental validation for selected cases and the framework’s potential to incorporate bulk or surface physicochemistry are clear strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical model / optimizer description] § on numerical model and optimizer (contact-mechanics simulator): The central claim that the framework offers design solutions for any physically possible friction law rests on the assumption that the simulator accurately predicts macroscopic friction once the optimized topography is fabricated. The manuscript reports experimental validation only for 'relevant cases,' leaving open whether discrepancies from neglected adhesion, plastic flow, or asperity interactions appear for other exponents or laws. A concrete test (e.g., model-vs-experiment comparison for an exponent near 1.35 or a bilinear case outside the validated set) is needed to confirm load-bearing predictive fidelity.
  2. [Results on power-law and bilinear laws] Results section on power-law and bilinear laws: While the optimization targets the stated exponent range (2/3–1.35) and bilinear segments, the manuscript does not provide an explicit justification or sensitivity analysis showing that the discovered geometries remain physically realizable and model-consistent at the boundaries; without this, the extrapolation to 'any physically possible' law is not yet fully supported by the presented evidence.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and legends could more explicitly label which curves correspond to simulation versus experiment and which exponent or law segment is shown.
  2. [Abstract / Validation paragraph] The abstract states validation for 'relevant cases' but does not define the selection criteria; a brief sentence in the main text would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments highlight important aspects of model validation and evidence strength that we address below. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of the numerical framework and results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical model / optimizer description] § on numerical model and optimizer (contact-mechanics simulator): The central claim that the framework offers design solutions for any physically possible friction law rests on the assumption that the simulator accurately predicts macroscopic friction once the optimized topography is fabricated. The manuscript reports experimental validation only for 'relevant cases,' leaving open whether discrepancies from neglected adhesion, plastic flow, or asperity interactions appear for other exponents or laws. A concrete test (e.g., model-vs-experiment comparison for an exponent near 1.35 or a bilinear case outside the validated set) is needed to confirm load-bearing predictive fidelity.

    Authors: We agree that stronger evidence of the simulator's predictive fidelity across the full range would better support the central claim. The original manuscript included experimental validation for representative cases spanning constant coefficients and selected power-law exponents. In response, we have added new model-versus-experiment comparisons for a power-law exponent of 1.3 and an additional bilinear configuration. We have also expanded the discussion of model assumptions, explicitly addressing potential effects of neglected adhesion, plastic flow, and asperity interactions, along with their expected influence near the range boundaries. These additions are incorporated in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results on power-law and bilinear laws] Results section on power-law and bilinear laws: While the optimization targets the stated exponent range (2/3–1.35) and bilinear segments, the manuscript does not provide an explicit justification or sensitivity analysis showing that the discovered geometries remain physically realizable and model-consistent at the boundaries; without this, the extrapolation to 'any physically possible' law is not yet fully supported by the presented evidence.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation. The revised manuscript now includes a dedicated sensitivity analysis examining the optimized topographies at the boundaries of the exponent range (2/3 and 1.35) and for the bilinear laws. This analysis verifies that the resulting geometries satisfy fabrication constraints, avoid unphysical asperity overlaps, and remain consistent with the contact-mechanics assumptions used in the optimizer. We also clarify the optimization constraints that enforce physical realizability throughout the search. These additions directly address the concern and better support the framework's applicability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: input-driven optimization framework

full rationale

The paper presents a numerical optimization framework that accepts user-specified target friction laws (e.g., power-law exponents or bilinear segments) as explicit inputs and searches for asperity topographies that realize them via a contact-mechanics simulator. No derivation step reduces a claimed prediction or result to a fitted parameter by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise rely on a self-citation chain that itself lacks independent verification. Experimental validation is reported for relevant cases, and the central claim of versatility for any physically possible law follows directly from the optimizer's ability to explore the parameter space rather than from re-labeling or self-referential definitions. The approach is self-contained as a standard inverse-design method.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only; the framework rests on standard contact-mechanics assumptions and optimization techniques without new free parameters or entities explicitly stated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The asperity contact model inside the optimizer correctly maps local topography to macroscopic friction force.
    This premise is required for any discovered design to be physically realizable.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5742 in / 1192 out tokens · 51694 ms · 2026-05-20T02:01:02.325355+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Costa, J

    H.L. Costa, J. Schille, A. Rosenkranz, Tailored surface textures to increase friction—a review. Friction 10(9), 1285–1304 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-021-0589-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s40544-021-0589-y 2022

  2. [2]

    Holmberg, A

    K. Holmberg, A. Erdemir, Influence of tribology on global energy consumption, costs and emissions. Friction 5(3), 263–284 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-017-0183-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s40544-017-0183-5 2017

  3. [3]

    Bicchi, V

    A. Bicchi, V. Kumar, Robotic Grasping and Contact: A Review, in Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00ch37065), vol. 1 (2000), pp. 348–353 vol.1. https://doi. org/10.1109/ROBOT.2000.844081

    work page doi:10.1109/robot.2000.844081 2000

  4. [4]

    Liu, R.D

    Z. Liu, R.D. Howe, Beyond coulomb: Stochastic friction models for practical grasping and manipulation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8(8), 5140–5147 (2023). https: //doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2023.3292580

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2023.3292580 2023

  5. [5]

    Masset, R

    G. Millet, M. Otis, D. Horodniczy, J.R. Cooperstock, Design of variable-friction devices for shoe-floor contact. Mechatronics 46, 115–125 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. mechatronics.2017.07.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2017

  6. [6]

    Basdogan, F

    C. Basdogan, F. Giraud, V. Levesque, S. Choi, A review of surface haptics: Enabling tactile effects on touch surfaces. IEEE Transactions on Haptics 13(3), 450–470 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2020.2990712

    work page doi:10.1109/toh.2020.2990712 2020

  7. [7]

    Vakis, V.A

    A.I. Vakis, V.A. Yastrebov, J. Scheibert, L. Nicola, D. Dini, C. Minfray, A. Almqvist, M. Paggi, S. Lee, G. Limbert, J.F. Molinari, G. Anciaux, R. Aghababaei, S. Echev- erri Restrepo, A. Papangelo, A. Cammarata, P. Nicolini, C. Putignano, G. Carbone, S. Stupkiewicz, J. Lengiewicz, G. Costagliola, F. Bosia, R. Guarino, N.M. Pugno, M.H. M¨ user, M. Ciavarel...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2018.02 2018

  8. [8]

    Scheibert, S

    J. Scheibert, S. Leurent, A. Prevost, G. Debr´ egeas, The Role of Fingerprints in the Coding of Tactile Information Probed with a Biomimetic Sensor. Science 323(5920), 1503–1506 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1166467

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1166467 2009

  9. [9]

    Murarash, Y

    B. Murarash, Y. Itovich, M. Varenberg, Tuning elastomer friction by hexagonal surface patterning. Soft Matter 7(12), 5553 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1039/c1sm00015b 29

    work page doi:10.1039/c1sm00015b 2011

  10. [10]

    M.J. Baum, L. Heepe, E. Fadeeva, S.N. Gorb, Dry friction of microstructured polymer surfaces inspired by snake skin. Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology 5, 1091–1103 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.5.122

    work page doi:10.3762/bjnano.5.122 2014

  11. [11]

    N. Li, E. Xu, Z. Liu, X. Wang, L. Liu, Tuning apparent friction coefficient by controlled patterning bulk metallic glasses surfaces. Scientific Reports 6(1), 39388 (2016). https: //doi.org/10.1038/srep39388

    work page doi:10.1038/srep39388 2016

  12. [12]

    Huang, S

    S. Huang, S. Zhang, D. Wei, H. Song, Y. Li, J. Cheng, H. Zhao, S. Song, Z. Li, L. Li, S. Shao, C. Zhai, M. Xu, Frictional strength regulated by roughness alignment. Science Advances 11(38), eady6779 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ady6779

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.ady6779 2025

  13. [13]

    A., Mathur, S., Salabert, D., Ballot, J., R´egulo, C., Metcalfe, T

    A. Aymard, E. Delplanque, D. Dalmas, J. Scheibert, Designing metainterfaces with spec- ified friction laws. Science 383(6679), 200–204 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1126/science. adk4234

    work page doi:10.1126/science 2024

  14. [14]

    Barber, in Contact Mechanics (Springer, Cham, 2018), pp

    J.R. Barber, in Contact Mechanics (Springer, Cham, 2018), pp. 29–41. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-70939-0 3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70939-0 2018

  15. [15]

    Cerniauskas, H

    G. Cerniauskas, H. Sadia, P. Alam, Machine intelligence in metamaterials design: A review. Oxford Open Materials Science 4(1), itae001 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfmat/ itae001

    work page doi:10.1093/oxfmat/ 2024

  16. [16]

    H. Zhai, H. Hao, J. Yeo, Benchmarking inverse optimization algorithms for materials design. APL Materials 12(2), 21107 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0177266

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0177266 2024

  17. [17]

    N. Aage, E. Andreassen, B.S. Lazarov, O. Sigmund, Giga-voxel computational morpho- genesis for structural design. Nature 550(7674), 84–86 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature23911

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Bordiga, E

    G. Bordiga, E. Medina, S. Jafarzadeh, C. B¨ osch, R.P. Adams, V. Tournat, K. Bertoldi, Automated discovery of reprogrammable nonlinear dynamic metamaterials. Nature Materials 23(11), 1486–1494 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-024-02008-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41563-024-02008-6 2024

  19. [19]

    Bastek, D.M

    J.H. Bastek, D.M. Kochmann, Inverse design of nonlinear mechanical metamaterials via video denoising diffusion models. Nature Machine Intelligence 5(12), 1466–1475 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00762-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s42256-023-00762-x 2023

  20. [20]

    Tailoring Frictional Properties of Surfaces Using Diffusion Models

    E. Nordhagen, H.A. Sveinsson, A. Malthe-Sørenssen, Tailoring frictional properties of surfaces using diffusion models. Journal of Physical Chemistry C 129(32), 14559–14564 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.5c02768

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.5c02768 2025

  21. [21]

    Mouton, A

    V. Mouton, A. M´ elot, Friction on demand: A generative framework for the inverse design of metainterfaces. Tribology International 218, 111724 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.triboint.2026.111724

    work page arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Zampini, J.K

    S. Zampini, J.K. Christopher, L. Oneto, D. Anguita, F. Fioretto, Training-Free Con- strained Generation with Stable Diffusion Models , in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 38, ed. by D. Belgrave, C. Zhang, H. Lin, R. Pascanu, P. Koniusz, M. Ghassemi, N. Chen (Curran Associates, Inc., 2025), pp. 27285–27316

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Katoch, S.S

    S. Katoch, S.S. Chauhan, V. Kumar, A review on genetic algorithm: Past, present, and future. Multimedia Tools and Applications 80(5), 8091–8126 (2021). https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11042-020-10139-6

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Cinat, G

    P. Cinat, G. Gnecco, M. Paggi, Multi-scale surface roughness optimization through genetic algorithms. Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering 6, 29 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/ fmech.2020.00029 30

    work page arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    D. Zeka, N. Blal, F.E. Fekak, A. Duval, A. Gravouil, J. Scheibert, Normal contact of metainterfaces: The roles of finite size and microcontact interactions. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 214, 106646 (2026). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jmps.2026.106646

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Fusco, A

    C. Fusco, A. Fasolino, Power-law load dependence of atomic friction. Applied Physics Letters 84(5), 699–701 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1644617

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1644617 2004

  27. [27]

    J ¨org, F

    D. Toan Nguyen, E. Wandersman, A. Prevost, Y. Le Chenadec, C. Fretigny, A. Chateaumi- nois, Non–amontons-coulomb local friction law of randomly rough contact interfaces with rubber. Europhysics Letters 104(6), 64001 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/ 104/64001

    work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/ 2014

  28. [28]

    Z. Liu, J. Vilhena, A. Hinaut, S. Scherb, F. Luo, J. Zhang, T. Glatzel, E. Gnecco, E. Meyer, Moir´ e-tile manipulation-induced friction switch of graphene on a platinum surface. Nano Letters 23(10), 4693–4697 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.2c03818

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.2c03818 2023

  29. [29]

    Baumberger, C

    T. Baumberger, C. Caroli, Solid friction from stick–slip down to pinning and aging. Advances in Physics 55(3-4), 279–348 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00018730600732186

    work page 2006

  30. [30]

    Papangelo, J

    A. Papangelo, J. Scheibert, R. Sahli, G. Pallares, M. Ciavarella, Shear-induced contact area anisotropy explained by a fracture mechanics model. Physical Review E99(5), 053005 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.99.053005

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.99.053005 2019

  31. [31]

    Lengiewicz, M

    J. Lengiewicz, M. De Souza, M. Lahmar, C. Courbon, D. Dalmas, S. Stupkiewicz, J. Scheibert, Finite deformations govern the anisotropic shear-induced area reduction of soft elastic contacts. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 143, 104056 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2020.104056

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2020.104056 2020

  32. [32]

    K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6(2), 182–197 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017

    work page doi:10.1109/4235.996017 2002

  33. [33]

    Fortin, F.M.D

    F.A. Fortin, F.M.D. Rainville, M.A. Gardner, M. Parizeau, C. Gagn´ e, Deap: Evolutionary algorithms made easy. Journal of Machine Learning Research 13(70), 2171–2175 (2012)

    work page 2012

  34. [34]

    Delplanque, A

    E. Delplanque, A. Aymard, D. Dalmas, J. Scheibert, Solving curing-protocol-dependent shape errors in PDMS replication. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering32(4), 45006 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6439/ac56ea

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6439/ac56ea 2022

  35. [35]

    Guibert, C

    M. Guibert, C. Oliver, T. Durand, T. Le Mogne, A. Le Bot, D. Dalmas, J. Scheibert, J. Fontaine, A versatile flexure-based six-axis force/torque sensor and its application to tribology. Review of Scientific Instruments 92(8), 85002 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1063/ 5.0057266

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    Sahli, G

    R. Sahli, G. Pallares, C. Ducottet, I.E. Ben Ali, S. Al Akhrass, M. Guibert, J. Scheibert, Evolution of real contact area under shear and the value of static friction of soft materials. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(3), 471–476 (2018). https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1706434115

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1706434115 2018

  37. [37]

    Otsu, A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms

    N. Otsu, A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 9(1), 62–66 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1979. 4310076

    work page doi:10.1109/tsmc.1979 1979

  38. [38]

    Fuller, D

    K.N.G. Fuller, D. Tabor, The effect of surface roughness on the adhesion of elastic solids. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 345(1642), 327–342 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1975.0138 31

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1975.0138 1975