MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313705920 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggac495

Qualitative and quantitative comparison of the genetic and hybrid genetic algorithm to estimate acoustic impedance from post-stack seismic data of Blackfoot field, Canada

2022· article· en· W4313705920 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rajesh Singh, Pradeep Mahadasu, Ujjwal Singh, Kumar Hemant Singh, Rohtash Kumar, Prabodh Kumar Kushwaha

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismic inversionGeologyInversion (geology)Synthetic dataAcoustic impedanceElectrical impedanceGenetic algorithmReservoir modelingAlgorithmSeismologyComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringMathematicsMathematical optimizationEngineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY In this study, seismic inversion is carried out using a genetic algorithm (GA) as well as a hybrid genetic algorithm (HGA) approach to optimize the objective function designed for the inversion. An HGA is a two steps coupled process, where a local optimization algorithm is applied to the best model obtained from each generation of the GA. The study aims to compare the qualitative as well as the quantitative performance of both methods to delineate the reservoir zone from the non-reservoir zone. Initially, the developed algorithm is tested on synthetic data followed by its application to real data. It is found that the HGA for synthetic data is providing more accurate and high-resolution subsurface information as compared with the conventional GA although the time taken later is less as compared with the former methods. The application to real data also shows very high-resolution subsurface acoustic impedance information. The interpretation of the impedance section shows a low impedance anomaly zone at (1055–1070) ms time interval with impedance ranging from (7500 to 9500) m s−1*g cc−1. The correlation between seismic and well data shows that the low impedance zone is characterized as a clastic glauconitic sand channel (reservoir zone). In seismic inversion using an HGA, one can delineate the areal extent of the reservoir zone from the non-reservoir zone more specifically as compared to the GA-derived impedance. The convergence time of HGA is 4.4 per cent more than GA and can be even more for larger seismic reflection data sets. Further, for a more detailed analysis of the reservoir zone and to cross-validate inverted results, an artificial neural network (ANN) is applied to data, and porosity volume is predicted. The analysis shows that the low impedance zone interpreted in inversion results are correlating with the high porosity zone found in ANN methods and confirm the presence of the glauconitic sand channel. This study is important in the aspect of qualitative as well as quantitative comparison of the performance of the GA and HGA to delineate sand channels.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207