Prediction of centrifuge capillary pressure using machine learning techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In current literature in the petroleum industry, machine learning has been used to predict capillary pressure only on the centrifugal data points and not the complete capillary pressure curves generated from existing correlations after analysis. This paper will present novel information that will benefit the petroleum industry as it shows machine learning techniques can be used to obtain the complete capillary pressure curve which is the end goal in undertaking an SCAL centrifuge experiment. This research involves testing core samples using a centrifuge set up to produce capillary pressure data points. Then, using a commercial SCAL interpretation software, the collected data is utilized to generate complete capillary pressure curves based on developed literature correlations. RCAL data for the core samples is also obtained to be used with the machine learning techniques. The machine learning models are then applied to the collected data to predict the capillary pressure curves. Optimization of the different machine learning techniques is done to improve the predictions. The results show the machine learning techniques perform very well on the validation set after being trained on the training set. The machine learning models also provide reasonable prediction of the complete capillary pressure curves on the testing data set. Changing of the machine learning technique parameters also shows the effect on the overall precision and the improvements that can be made. Further research can be done to see the effectiveness of using machine learning techniques to predict other SCAL properties such as relative permeability. This can then greatly reduce the time needed to obtain these extremely important properties for reservoir characterization.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".