Generation of Synthetic Density Log Data Using Deep Learning Algorithm at the Golden Field in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study proposes a deep neural network- (DNN-) based prediction model for creating synthetic log. Unlike previous studies, it focuses on building a reliable prediction model based on two criteria: fit-for-purpose of a target field (the Golden field in Alberta) and compliance with domain knowledge. First, in the target field, the density log has advantages over the sonic log for porosity analysis because of the carbonate depositional environment. Considering the correlation between the density and sonic logs, we determine the sonic log as input and the density log as output for the DNN. Although only five wells have a pair of training data in the field (i.e., sonic and density logs), we obtain, based on geological knowledge, 29 additional wells sharing the same depositional setting in the Slave Point Formation. After securing the data, 5 wells among the 29 wells are excluded from dataset during preprocessing procedures (elimination of abnormal data and min–max normalisation) to improve the prediction model. Two cases are designed according to usage of the well information at the target field. Case 1 uses only 23 of the surrounding wells to train the prediction model, and another surrounding well is used for model testing. In Case 1, the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm shows a fast and reliable performance and the numbers of neurons in the two hidden layers are of 45 and 14, respectively. In Case 2, the 24 surrounding wells and four wells from the target field are used to train the DNN with the optimised parameters from Case 1. The synthetic density logs from Case 2 mitigate an underestimation problem in Case 1 and follow the overall trend of the true density logs. The developed prediction model utilises the sonic log for generating the synthetic density log, and a reliable porosity model will be created by combining the given and the synthetic density logs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".