ArticleScientific reports2025
Prediction of coal and gas outbursts based on physics informed neural networks and traditional machine learning models.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Theoretical Model and Experimental Validation of Coalbed Methane Adsorption/Desorption Dynamics in Cylindrical and Spherical Coal Particles.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Determination of critical thresholds for sensitive indicators in coal and gas outburst prediction for deep complex coal seams: methodology and application.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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
Coal and gas outbursts pose significant risks to underground mining operations, and accurate and reliable prediction is crucial for improving mine safety. Traditional machine learning models struggle to balance prediction accuracy and interpretability, particularly in cases of limited data or complex geological conditions. To address this challenge, this study proposes a prediction model based on Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINN), which integrates physical monotonicity constraints with data-driven learning to ensure that the predictions align with physical laws. Using actual data from a coal mine, this study compares the performance of the PINN model with traditional machine learning models, including Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Backpropagation Neural Network (BPNN). The results show that the PINN model achieves a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.966 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 6.452, outperforming the traditional models in both prediction accuracy and generalization ability. Furthermore, interpretability is significantly enhanced by incorporating known physical behaviors and monotonicity constraints. The proposed PINN-based prediction framework provides a more reliable and theoretically grounded approach to assessing coal and gas outburst risks. Integrating it into mining safety management systems can significantly improve early warning mechanisms and risk mitigation strategies.
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.