Research

Two journal papers, one published and one under review, plus two challenge papers on physiological signals. Every number below is from the official test set or from cross-validation, as noted.

Physics-informed leak detection in multiphase pipelines

Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Elsevier, published, accepted September 2026.

doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2026.109609

Offshore multiphase pipelines leak, and detecting a leak, sizing it and locating it are usually three separate problems, solved either by transient models too expensive to run in the loop or by data-driven detectors with no physical consistency. PCE-PINN does all three at once, from inlet and outlet pressure and flow rate alone. A physics sub-network penalises violations of nondimensional mass, momentum and mechanical-energy balance through adaptive curriculum training and adaptive collocation.

Finding. Detection is saturated at F1 = 1.00. The regression heads are what matter: location R2 improves 16.5 percent over the best of five classical baselines on identical features, so the gain comes from the physics-informed architecture rather than from the features. SHAP attribution lands on conservation-consistent variables.

Authors. Mridha, Kabir, Khandakar, Mia, Ahmed, Shahadad, Jim, Rahman, Ayari, Rahman and Barooah. Departments of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Dhaka and Qatar University, with Hamad Bin Khalifa University.

data path27 features12 raw inputs + 15 engineered, robust-scaledshared trunk27 → 64, tanhleak64 → 24 → 1diameter64 → 32 → 1location3-zone attndomainGRL, ∇→−λ∇data lossfocal + diameter + location, BCE on domainphysics pathboundary interpolationP₍bc₎ = P₍in₎(1−ξ) + P₍out₎ξphysics netfeat ⊕ ξ → 65 → 64×4 → 3field construction, leak sourceψ = ξ(1−ξ), autograd ∂/∂ξPDE residuals, nondimensionalmass · momentum · mechanical energyresidual loss, Σ ℛ²composite objectivestratified 5-fold cross-validation1.00detection F10.906diameter R²0.941location R², 16.5% over the best classical baseline
MeasureValueNote
Leak detection F11.00stratified 5-fold CV
Diameter R20.906—
Location R20.94116.5% over the best baseline
  • physics-informed neural network
  • multiphase flow
  • leak localisation
  • multi-task learning
  • explainable AI

Physics-informed surrogate for CO2 storage simulation

Fuel Processing Technology, Elsevier, under review, submitted July 2026.

A single forward solve of a high-resolution two-phase CO2 reservoir simulation takes hours, and history matching needs thousands of them. Embed-to-Control surrogates compress the state into a latent vector and advance it under well controls, but they share one linear observation model across every well, which regresses water and gas rates with very different non-linearities into one mediocre fit. PINN-E2CO replaces that block with an independent MLP head per producer over the shared latent, warm-started from a physics-free baseline at a tenth of the head learning rate, and trains under a hybrid loss whose three physics residuals are discretised on the finite-volume transmissibility operator the simulator itself uses.

Finding. Per-well heads are the fix, and the physics residuals are what make them stick: saturation RMSE down 38 percent and pressure RMSE down 35 percent against the non-physics baseline, with filtered per-well R2 moving from 0.82 to 0.91 after 16 minutes of fine-tuning on a single T4. An ablation of 33 variants, including FNO decoders, neural-ODE dynamics and DeepONet heads, confirms the shared linear observe block was the bottleneck.

Authors. Khandakar (corresponding), Ruhan, Kabir, Jim, Mia, Ahmed, Rahaman, Rahman, Ayari and Rahman.

E2CO surrogatestate x₍t₎ [B, 2, 64, 64] · controls u₍t₎, ΔtCO₂ mole fraction, pressure · 5 producers, 4 injectorsCNN encoder4 conv blocks + residual conv → z₍t₎ [B, 20]locally linear transitionz₍t+1₎ = A₍t₎z₍t₎ + B₍t₎(u₍t₎Δt)CNN decoderfield [B, 2, 64, 64]V19 observation heads5 × MLP + injector → 14data objectivesreconstruction, transition consistency, well-rate MSEPINN physics modulephysics inputsdecoded x̂₍t+1₎, reference x₍t₎, K, φ, Δttime terms, finite-volume stencil∂ₜp̂, ∂ₜĉ · harmonic transmissibilityresiduals on interior cellspressure diffusion · CO₂ massDarcy fluxresidual penaltyweighted sum of the three residualseight-term composite lossℒ = Σ λᵢ ℒᵢ, K = 2 rolloutagainst the non-physics E2CO baseline, 12,000 realisations on a 64 × 64 grid-38%saturation RMSE-35%pressure RMSE0.82 to 0.91per-well R², after 16 min on one T4
MeasureValueNote
Saturation RMSE-38%against the non-physics E2CO baseline
Pressure RMSE-35%—
Per-well R20.82 to 0.91filtered
Fine-tune time16 minsingle T4 GPU
  • CO2 sequestration
  • physics-informed neural network
  • embed-to-control
  • reservoir surrogate
  • explainable AI

Detecting pain without localising it

ACII 2026 Grand Challenge track, under double-blind review.

The AI4Pain 2026 challenge asks a model to label physiological segments from 65 subjects as No-Pain, Pain-Arm or Pain-Hand from BVP, EDA, respiration and SpO2. We present a two-stage hierarchical classifier: stage one separates pain from no-pain, stage two separates arm from hand. Both are L2-regularised logistic regressions on subject-normalised, effect-size-ranked features with isotonic calibration, decoded under the known balanced prior. Every design decision was made under 5x5 repeated subject-fold cross-validation with paired significance testing, not on the leaderboard.

Finding. Stage-one detection is strong. Stage-two arm-versus-hand localisation sits near chance and stays there through baseline-relative normalisation, respiratory dynamics, modality late-fusion, a sweep of non-linear models and an oracle variant fed ground-truth labels. At the segment level these peripheral signals carry pain intensity, not somatotopic location.

BVP EDARESP SpO265 subjectssegmentsfeaturessubject-normalisedeffect-size rankedstage 1pain vs no-pain0.895AUCstage 2arm vs hand0.55AUC, chanceofficial test set, 432 segments0.572accuracy, ours0.398official SVM baseline0.575 ± 0.0245x5 subject-fold CVL2 logistic regression, isotonic calibration, paired significance tests
MeasureValueNote
Test accuracy0.572247 of 432 segments
Official baseline0.398multimodal SVM
Detection AUC0.895stage 1
Localisation AUC0.55stage 2, near chance
CV estimate0.575 ± 0.0245x5 subject-fold
  • pain assessment
  • electrodermal activity
  • photoplethysmography
  • hierarchical classification
  • affective computing

Movement intent from EEG, EMG and IMU

ABC2026 MUMIDC challenge, challenge submission.

A CNN2D-TCN with late fusion of statistical EEG features classifying seven motor tasks across sixteen subjects under mixed leave-one-subject-out evaluation.

Finding. The release task (T6) is the stubborn one at 68 to 78 percent F1 in every configuration tried; everything else is well above 85.

EEGEMGIMUCNN2Dper-window mapsTCNtemporal convEEG statisticshand-picked featureslate fusiondeep + statistical7 motor tasks87.5%accuracy0.980macro AUC, mixed LOSO, 16 subjects
MeasureValueNote
Accuracy87.5%mixed LOSO, 16 folds
Macro F187.9%—
Macro AUC0.980—
  • EEG
  • EMG
  • IMU
  • temporal convolution
  • motor intent
DRAWN BYS. P. Jim
SHEET3 of 8
REV2026-09
Papers2 journal, 2 challenge
Research

Send a message

Replies usually within a day. Or write directly to soyeb.jim@gmail.com.