Prediction of Oil Formation Volume Factor Using an Intelligent Tool: Artificial Neural Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Oil Formation Volume Factor parameter is a very important fluid property in reservoir engineering computations. Ideally, this property should be obtained from actual measurements. Quite often, this measurement is either not available, or very costly to obtain. In such cases, empirically derived correlations are used in the prediction of this property. This work focuses on the use of an intelligent tool known as an artificial neural network (ANN) to address the inaccuracy of empirical correlations used for predicting oil formation volume factor. The new intelligent model was developed using 448 published data from the Middle East, Malaysia, Africa, North Sea, Mediterranean basin, Gulf of Persian fields and 160 data set collected from the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. The data set was randomly divided into three parts of which 60% was used for training, 20% for validation, and 20% for testing. Both quantitative and qualitative assessments were employed to evaluate the accuracy of the new intelligent model to the existing empirical correlations. The ANN intelligent model outperformed the existing empirical correlations by the statistical parameters used with a lowest rank of 0.6313 and better performance plot. Key words : Oil formation volume factor; Empirical correlation; Artificial neural network; Back propagation; Statistical analysis
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".