MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951071600 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1504.06871

A Closer Look At Differential Evolution For The Optimal Well Placement Problem

2015· preprint· en· W2951071600 on OpenAlexafffund
Grazieli Luiza Costa Carosio, Thomas Humphries, Ronald D. Haynes, Colin G. Farquharson

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)CrossoverDifferential evolutionMathematical optimizationPopulationComputer scienceToolboxMATLABDifferential (mechanical device)MathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy demand has increased considerably with the growth of world population, increasing the interest in the hydrocarbon reservoir management problem. Companies are concerned with maximizing oil recovery while minimizing capital investment and operational costs. A first step in solving this problem is to consider optimal well placement. In this work, we investigate the Differential Evolution (DE) optimization method, using distinct configurations with respect to population size, mutation factor, crossover probability, and mutation strategy, to solve the well placement problem. By assuming a bare control procedure, one optimizes the parameters representing positions of injection and production wells. The Tenth SPE Comparative Solution Project and MATLAB Reservoir Simulation Toolbox (MRST) are the benchmark dataset and simulator used, respectively. The goal is to evaluate the performance of DE in solving this important real-world problem. We show that DE can find high-quality solutions, when compared with a reference from the literature, and a preliminary analysis on the results of multiple experiments gives useful information on how DE configuration impacts its performance.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207