Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40819169›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Prediction of coal and gas outbursts based on physics informed neural networks and traditional machine learning models.

Lei Wang, Baoshan Jia, Guorui Su

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Lei WangCollege of Safety Science and Engineering, Liaoning Technical University, Fuxin, 123000, China.
Baoshan JiaCollege of Safety Science and Engineering, Liaoning Technical University, Fuxin, 123000, China. jbs1972@126.com.
Guorui SuInformation Research Institute of the Ministry of Emergency Management, Beijing, 100029, Chaoyang, China.

Funding

the S&T Innovation and Development Project from the Information Institution of the Ministry of Emergency Management 2024507
6 · The paper itself

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

Coal and gas outburstMechanism and data coupling modelPhysics-informed neural networkPrediction model

Identifiers

PMID40819169
PMCPMC12357847

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.