Use of multiattribute transforms to predict log properties from seismic data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We describe a new method for predicting well-log properties from seismic data. The analysis data consist of a series of target logs from wells which tie a 3-D seismic volume. The target logs theoretically may be of any type; however, the greatest success to date has been in predicting porosity logs. From the 3-D seismic volume a series of sample-based attributes is calculated. The objective is to derive a multiattribute transform, which is a linear or nonlinear transform between a subset of the attributes and the target log values. The selected subset is determined by a process of forward stepwise regression, which derives increasingly larger subsets of attributes. An extension of conventional crossplotting involves the use of a convolutional operator to resolve frequency differences between the target logs and the seismic data. In the linear mode, the transform consists of a series of weights derived by least-squares minimization. In the nonlinear mode, a neural network is trained, using the selected attributes as inputs. Two types of neural networks have been evaluated: the multilayer feedforward network (MLFN) and the probabilistic neural network (PNN). Because of its mathematical simplicity, the PNN appears to be the network of choice. To estimate the reliability of the derived multiattribute transform, crossvalidation is used. In this process, each well is systematically removed from the training set, and the transform is rederived from the remaining wells. The prediction error for the hidden well is then calculated. The validation error, which is the average error for all hidden wells, is used as a measure of the likely prediction error when the transform is applied to the seismic volume. The method is applied to two real data sets. In each case, we see a continuous improvement in predictive power as we progress from single-attribute regression to linear multiattribute prediction to neural network prediction. This improvement is evident not only on the training data but, more importantly, on the validation data. In addition, the neural network shows a significant improvement in resolution over that from linear regression.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".