MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895895639 · doi:10.2118/1018-0064-jpt

Simulation Algorithm Benefits by Connecting Geostatistics With Unsupervised Learning

2018· article· en· W2895895639 on OpenAlex
Adam Wilson

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeostatisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmUnsupervised learningArtificial neural networkMachine learningHeuristicData miningMathematicsSpatial variability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by Special Publications Editor Adam Wilson, contains highlights of paper SPE 190087, “Unsupervised Statistical Learning With Integrated Pattern-Based Geostatistical Simulation,” by Q. Li and R. Aguilera, SPE, University of Calgary, prepared for the 2018 SPE Western Regional Meeting, Garden Grove, California, USA, 22–27 April. The paper has not been peer reviewed. This paper presents a new geostatistics modeling methodology that connects geostatistics and machine-learning methodologies, uses nonlinear topological mapping to reduce the original high-dimensional data space, and uses unsupervised-learning algorithms to bypass problems with supervised-learning algorithms. The algorithm presented is a neural topology-preserving pattern-based geostatistical simulation algorithm that integrates the self-organizing map (SOM) concept and its updated version—growing self-organizing map (GSOM)—with an unsupervised competitive learning structure. Introduction In oil and gas reservoir modeling, any model construction faces challenges of limited data to some extent. The heuristic behind all geostatistical techniques is the implicit existence of statistical relationships among available data. “Data” here is a broad term; it could be discrete points, such as porosity or permeability at certain locations, but it also could be training images (TIs), which are used in this work. Using TIs as input data originated with multiple-point geostatistics. The aim was to overcome the limitations of using traditional two-point statistical variograms to describe geological continuity, especially in the case of curvilinear structures, which are quite common in nature, such as in fracture networks and geological fluvial structures. The authors write that geostatistics could benefit from the machine-learning or statistical-learning areas. Machine-learning tasks can be divided into two protocols, supervised learning and unsupervised learning. The difference depends on whether the input data have correct labels or not. For the investigation considered in this paper, after retrieving image patches from TIs, machine-learning algorithms were used to cluster those image patches into different classifications. If the correct clusters to which the image patches belong is known beforehand, the data can be said to have correct labels. Further, a large amount of these labeled data could be used for a model to learn. Supervised learning occurs when the model is finely tuned by guidance of these correct labels using an error-correction process. Unsupervised learning, on the other hand, occurs when neither how many clusters exist nor the correct clusters to which the image patches belong is known. Thus, without correct labels for guidance, this problem is identified as an unsupervised-learning problem. This is the first major drawback of applying machine-learning algorithms to geostatistical simulations. Two other important issues are encountered when performing pattern-based geostatistical simulations. The first is related to the large number of image patches. This large image-patch database contains high pattern redundancy, which could make pattern similarity comparison inefficient. The second issue is the high dimensionality of each image patch, which could typically be described by low-dimensional nonlinear-structure manifolds. To model and visualize these high-dimensional data, a nonlinearity dimensionality reduction should be sought.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it