MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280609515 · doi:10.1190/geo2021-0665.1

A Bayesian multivariate model using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo inference to estimate total organic carbon content in shale

2022· article· en· W4280609515 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shib Sankar Ganguli, Mohamed Mehdi Kadri, Akash Debnath, Souvik Sen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodBayesian inferenceOil shaleBayesian probabilityTotal organic carbonComputer scienceGeologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The prediction of total organic carbon (TOC) content using geophysical logs is one of the key steps in shale reservoir characterization. Various empirical relations have previously been used for the estimation of TOC content from well-logs; however, uncertainty quantification in the model estimation is often ignored while performing TOC estimation in a deterministic framework. We introduce the problem of TOC estimation in a Bayesian setting with the goal of enhancing the TOC content prediction together with the quantification of the uncertainty in the model prediction. To signify the uncertainty, we draw random samples of model parameters from the posterior distribution by realizing multidimensional stochastic processes within the Hamiltonian Monte Carlo algorithm. The posterior model for the variables that influence TOC estimation is conditioned on the available well-log observations and is further defined by a priori and likelihood distributions. We demonstrate examples of applications of this approach to estimate the TOC content on two real field data sets from the well-known Devonian Duvernay shale of Western Canada and the Silurian shale of the Ahnet Basin. The accuracy in the estimation is arbitrated by comparing the prediction results with those obtained using the two most widely used empirical models. Corroborating the results by the laboratory-measured TOC contents demonstrate that the Bayesian approach offers a more reliable and better confidence in predictions when compared with the empirical models, as it provides additional information on the prediction uncertainty. Finally, the implications of the present approach are derived in terms of depositional environments to characterize the high TOC content zone in the studied organic shale formations.

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 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207