Bayesian artificial intelligence for geologic prediction: Fracture case study, Horn River Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A Bayesian Belief Network (BN) has been developed to predict fractures in the subsurface during the early stages of oil and gas exploration. The probability of fractures provides a first-order proxy for spatial variations in fracture intensity at a regional scale. Nodes in the BN, representing geologic variables, were linked in a directed acyclic graph to capture key parameters influencing fracture generation over geologic time. The states of the nodes were defined by expert judgment and conditioned by available datasets. Using regional maps with public data from the Horn River Basin in British Columbia, Canada, predictions for spatial variations in the probability of fractures were generated for the Devonian Muskwa shale. The resulting BN analysis was linked to map-based predictions via a geographic information system. The automated process captures human reasoning and improves this through conditional probability calculations for a complex array of geologic influences. A comparison between inferred high fracture intensities and the locations of wells with high production rates suggests a close correspondence. While several factors could account for variations in production rates from the Muskwa shale, higher fracture densities are a likely influence. The process of constructing and cross-validating the BN supports a consistent approach to predict fracture intensities early in exploration and to prioritize data needed to improve the prediction. As such, BNs provide a mechanism to support alignment within exploration groups. As exploration proceeds, the BN can be used to rapidly update predictions. While the BN does not currently represent time-dependent processes and cannot be applied without adjustment to other regions, it offers a fast and flexible approach for fracture prediction in situations characterized by sparse data.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".