Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39304669›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Comparative study of ten machine learning algorithms for short-term forecasting in gas warning systems.

Robert M X Wu, Niusha Shafiabady, Huan Zhang, Haiyan Lu, Ergun Gide, Jinrong Liu, Clement Franck Benoit Charbonnier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Robert M X Wu *Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. mingxuan.wu@uts.edu.au.
Niusha Shafiabady *Department of Information Technology, Peter Faber Business School, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, Australia.
Huan ZhangSchool of Geography, Shanxi Normal University, Taiyuan, China.
Haiyan LuFaculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
Ergun GideSchool of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, Sydney, Australia.
Jinrong LiuFaculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
Clement Franck Benoit CharbonnierFaculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

Shanxi Coking Coal Project 201809fx03Shanxi Social Science Federation SSKLZDKT2019053
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This research aims to explore more efficient machine learning (ML) algorithms with better performance for short-term forecasting. Up-to-date literature shows a lack of research on selecting practical ML algorithms for short-term forecasting in real-time industrial applications. This research uses a quantitative and qualitative mixed method combining two rounds of literature reviews, a case study, and a comparative analysis. Ten widely used ML algorithms are selected to conduct a comparative study of gas warning systems in a case study mine. We propose a new assessment visualization tool: a 2D space-based quadrant diagram can be used to visually map prediction error assessment and predictive performance assessment for tested algorithms. Overall, this visualization tool indicates that LR, RF, and SVM are more efficient ML algorithms with overall prediction performance for short-term forecasting. This research indicates ten tested algorithms can be visually mapped onto optimal (LR, RF, and SVM), efficient (ARIMA), suboptimal (BP-SOG, KNN, and Perceptron), and inefficient algorithms (RNN, BP_Resilient, and LSTM). The case study finds results that differ from previous studies regarding the ML efficiency of ARIMA, KNN, LR, LSTM, and SVM. This study finds different views on the prediction performance of a few paired algorithms compared with previous studies, including RF and LR, SVM and RF, KNN and ARIMA, KNN and SVM, RNN and ARIMA, and LSTM and SVM. This study also suggests that ARIMA, KNN, LR, and LSTM should be investigated further with additional prediction error assessments. Overall, no single algorithm can fit all applications. This study raises 20 valuable questions for further research.

Indexed as

Assessment visualization toolCase studyGas warning systemsMachine learning algorithmsShort-term forecasting

Identifiers

PMID39304669
PMCPMC11415518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.