Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42899117›Full record

ArticleNational science review2026

Fusing physics and AI enhances accuracy and diagnostic capabilities in air quality forecasting.

Huangjian Wu, Zifa Wang, Yuanhang Zhang, Wei Lin, Xinwei Li, Meng Gao, Hao Sun, Dawei Zhang, Wei Wang, Xiao Tang and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in National science review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

17 authors.

Huangjian WuState Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Environment and Extreme Meteorology, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China.
Zifa WangState Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Environment and Extreme Meteorology, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China.
Yuanhang ZhangCollege of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China.
Wei LinSchool of Mathematical Sciences and Center for Statistical Science, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China.
Xinwei LiState Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Environment and Extreme Meteorology, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China.
Meng GaoDepartment of Geography, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong 999077, China.
Hao SunGaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5145-3259
Dawei ZhangChina National Environmental Monitoring Center, Beijing 100012, China.
Wei WangChina National Environmental Monitoring Center, Beijing 100012, China.
Xiao TangState Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Environment and Extreme Meteorology, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China.
Jiang ZhuState Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Environment and Extreme Meteorology, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China.
Yu SongCollege of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2455-2999
Chaoqun MaAerosol Chemistry Department, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz 55128, Germany.
Pingqing FuInstitute of Surface-Earth System Science, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China.
Hang SuState Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Environment and Extreme Meteorology, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China.
Yafang ChengAerosol Chemistry Department, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz 55128, Germany.
Gregory R CarmichaelCenter for Global and Regional Environmental Research, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate air quality forecasts with diagnostic value are pivotal for emission-control policies and public health, yet chemical transport models (CTMs) are hampered by uncertainties in physicochemical parameterizations, whereas AI-only approaches sacrifice interpretability for predictive power. Here, we introduce ProNet, a coupled forecasting framework that embeds observation-constrained neural correctors directly into the governing equations of CTMs. Rather than treating AI as an external postprocessor or a process-replacing surrogate, ProNet integrates trainable networks into physical simulations to systematically reduce process-level uncertainties, suppress error propagation and maintain physical constraints of mass transport. Applied to 2022-23 data across 338 Chinese cities, ProNet consistently outperforms physical CTMs and AI-only baselines, and better generalizes to extreme events beyond the training data. It also surpasses forecaster-adjusted operational forecasts, which often improve upon raw CTM guidance in severe episodes, improving accuracy by 6.1% for PM

Indexed as

air quality forecastingmodel interpretabilityphysical consistencyphysics–AI couplingPM2.5 and O3 predictionuncertainty quantification

Identifiers

PMID42899117
PMCPMC13678820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.