Comparison of machine learning methods for estimating permeability and porosity of oil reservoirs via petro-physical logs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper deals with the comparison of models for predicting porosity and permeability of oil reservoirs by coupling a machine learning concept and petrophysical logs. Different machine learning methods including conventional artificial neural network, genetic algorithm, fuzzy decision tree, the imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA), particle swarm optimization (PSO), and a hybrid of those ones are employed to have a comprehensive comparison. The machine learning approach was constructed and tested via data samples recorded from northern Persian Gulf oil reservoirs. The results gained from the machine learning models used in this paper are compared to the relevant real petrophysical data and the outputs achieved by other methods employed in our previous studies. The average relative absolute deviation between the approach estimations and the relevant actual data is found to be less than 1% for the hybridized approaches. The results reported in this paper indicate that implication of hybridized machine learning methods in porosity and permeability estimations can lead to the construction of more reliable static reservoir models in simulation plans. Keywords: Machine learning, Neural network, Support vector machine, Porosity, Permeability, Well logs, Petro-physic
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it