Synthetic Sonic Log Generation With Machine Learning: A Contest Summary From Five Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compressional and shear sonic traveltime logs (DTC and DTS, respectively) are crucial for subsurface characterization and seismic-well tie. However, these two logs are often missing or incomplete in many oil and gas wells. Therefore, many petrophysical and geophysical workflows include sonic log synthetization or pseudo-log generation based on multivariate regression or rock physics relations. Started on March 1, 2020, and concluded on May 7, 2020, the SPWLA PDDA SIG hosted a contest aiming to predict the DTC and DTS logs from seven “easy-to-acquire” conventional logs using machine-learning methods (GitHub, 2020). In the contest, a total number of 20,525 data points with half-foot resolution from three wells was collected to train regression models using machine-learning techniques. Each data point had seven features, consisting of the conventional “easy-to-acquire” logs: caliper, neutron porosity, gamma ray (GR), deep resistivity, medium resistivity, photoelectric factor, and bulk density, respectively, as well as two sonic logs (DTC and DTS) as the target. The separate data set of 11,089 samples from a fourth well was then used as the blind test data set. The prediction performance of the model was evaluated using root mean square error (RMSE) as the metric, shown in the equation below: RMSE=sqrt(1/2*1/m* [∑_(i=1)^m▒〖(〖DTC〗_pred^i-〖DTC〗_true^i)〗^2 + 〖(〖DTS〗_pred^i-〖DTS〗_true^i)〗^2 ] In the benchmark model, (Yu et al., 2020), we used a Random Forest regressor and conducted minimal preprocessing to the training data set; an RMSE score of 17.93 was achieved on the test data set. The top five models from the contest, on average, beat the performance of our benchmark model by 27% in the RMSE score. In the paper, we will review these five solutions, including preprocess techniques and different machine-learning models, including neural network, long short-term memory (LSTM), and ensemble trees. We found that data cleaning and clustering were critical for improving the performance in all models.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".