Well-Logging-Based Lithology Classification Using Machine Learning Methods for High-Quality Reservoir Identification: A Case Study of Baikouquan Formation in Mahu Area of Junggar Basin, NW China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification of underground formation lithology is fundamental in reservoir characterization during petroleum exploration. With the increasing availability and diversity of well-logging data, automated interpretation of well-logging data is in great demand for more efficient and reliable decision making for geologists and geophysicists. This study benchmarked the performances of an array of machine learning models, from linear and nonlinear individual classifiers to ensemble methods, on the task of lithology identification. Cross-validation and Bayesian optimization were utilized to optimize the hyperparameters of different models and performances were evaluated based on the metrics of accuracy—the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), precision, recall, and F1-score. The dataset of the study consists of well-logging data acquired from the Baikouquan formation in the Mahu Sag of the Junggar Basin, China, including 4156 labeled data points with 9 well-logging variables. Results exhibit that ensemble methods (XGBoost and RF) outperform the other two categories of machine learning methods by a material margin. Within the ensemble methods, XGBoost has the best performance, achieving an overall accuracy of 0.882 and AUC of 0.947 in classifying mudstone, sandstone, and sandy conglomerate. Among the three lithology classes, sandy conglomerate, as in the potential reservoirs in the study area, can be best distinguished with accuracy of 97%, precision of 0.888, and recall of 0.969, suggesting the XGBoost model as a strong candidate machine learning model for more efficient and accurate lithology identification and reservoir quantification for geologists.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".