ArticleScientific reports2026
Predicting methane adsorption in coal and shale with white-box and black-box machine learning models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate prediction of methane (CH4) adsorption in coal and shale formations is essential for optimizing gas extraction, enhancing storage efficiency, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, and ensuring safe mining and unconventional reservoir development. In this study, the most comprehensive dataset reported to date was compiled to model CH4 adsorption in coal and shale systems, using pressure (P), moisture content (M), and total organic carbon (TOC) as inputs for coal, and temperature (T), moisture content (M), and TOC for shale. To simultaneously achieve high predictive accuracy and physical interpretability, three transparent white-box models gene expression programming (GEP), group method of data handling (GMDH), and genetic programming (GP) and three advanced black-box models Gaussian process regression (GPR), categorical boosting (CatBoost), and light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM) were developed and systematically evaluated. The white-box models successfully produced explicit, closed-form mathematical correlations that directly link CH4 adsorption to key controlling parameters, providing transparent, physically interpretable tools that can be readily applied without specialized software. In parallel, the black-box models were employed to benchmark predictive performance, with CatBoost achieving the best overall accuracy, yielding mean squared errors (MSE) of 0.008 and 0.004 and coefficients of determination (R2) of 0.924 and 0.997 for coal and shale, respectively. Model interpretability was further enhanced using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), which consistently identified TOC as the dominant factor governing CH4 adsorption in both systems, while leverage-based outlier analysis confirmed the robustness of the optimal models, with more than 99% of coal data and over 95% of shale data falling within the applicability domain. Notably, this work represents the first application of GEP, GMDH, and GP to derive transparent, user-friendly analytical expressions for CH4 adsorption in coal, offering a practical and interpretable alternative to purely black-box machine-learning approaches.
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.