ArticlePloS one2025
RETRACTED: Natural gas price prediction based on artificial intelligence models.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2026-02-23Cites Retracted Work · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The natural gas supply crisis triggered by the Russia-Ukraine conflict has laid bare the energy market's extreme vulnerability in the face of geopolitical risk, highlighting the need for accurate multi-step gas price forecasting. However, most AI-based energy price studies have a gap: they focus on single-step prediction or homogeneous model comparisons, lacking analysis of performance degradation in multi-step dynamic frameworks. This study takes daily natural gas price data from the Henry Hub in the United States from 1997 to 2024 as the research object, constructs a multi-step prediction framework with a step size ranging from 1 to 4 days, and systematically compares the prediction performances of four artificial intelligence models: feedforward neural network, support vector machine, random forest, and long short-term memory network. The quantitative results show that, across all prediction cycles, the long short-term memory model has the lowest error rate. For example, in one-step forecasting, its Mean Absolute Percentage Error is 8.53%. Practically, the findings matter. Taking European governments facing natural gas shortages in the Russia-Ukraine conflict as an example, LSTM models can be used for multi-step prediction to forecast price fluctuations 2-4 days in advance, optimizing import reserve strategies to avoid supply disruptions; energy traders can use this to design robust futures arbitrage portfolios. In summary, the research provides a scientific basis and reference for government energy security policy-making and institutional investor trading.
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.