Application of soft computing approaches for modeling annular pressure loss of slim-hole wells in one of Iranian central oil fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In order to have a better control over the drilling process and reduce the overall cost of this drilling operation, engineers have tried to use soft computing (SC) techniques to conduct the pre-estimation of drilling events. It is critically important to estimate the annular pressure losses (APL) for non-Newtonian drilling muds within annulus in order to specify pump rates and also to be able to choose the most appropriate mud pump systems while conducting the drilling operations. To develop the vigorous and exact models to enable the prediction of APL, two popular models were employed, i.e., multilayer perceptron (MLP) [optimized by levenberg-marquardt (LM), bayesian regularization (BR), scaled conjugate gradient (SCG), Resilient back propagation (RB), and broyden fletcher goldfarb shanno (BFGS)] and radial basis function (RBF). Subsequently, applying a committee machine intelligent system (CMIS), the four top models were combined into a unit paradigm. Several tools such as error distribution diagram, cross plot, trend analysis, and cumulative frequency diagram were used in conjunction with statistical calculation to assess the efficiency of models. Consequently, the CMIS model was introduced as the most exact technique which has the greatest coefficient of determination (R2 close to one) as well as the lowest root mean square error (RMSE close to zero) for the tested dataset.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".