Supervised deep learning-based paradigm to screen the enhanced oil recovery scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High oil prices and concern about limited oil reserves lead to increase interest in enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Selecting the most efficient development plan is of high interest to optimize economic cost. Hence, the main objective of this study is to construct a novel deep-learning classifier to select the best EOR method based on the reservoir's rock and fluid properties (depth, porosity, permeability, gravity, viscosity), and temperature. Our deep learning-based classifier consists of a one-dimensional (1D) convolutional neural network, long short-term memory (LSTM), and densely connected neural network layers. The genetic algorithm has been applied to tune the hyperparameters of this hybrid classifier. The proposed classifier is developed and tested using 735 EOR projects on sandstone, unconsolidated sandstone, carbonate, and conglomerate reservoirs in more than 17 countries. Both the numerical and graphical investigations approve that the structure-tuned deep learning classifier is a reliable tool to screen the EOR scenarios and select the best one. The designed model correctly classifies training, validation, and testing examples with an accuracy of 96.82%, 84.31%, and 82.61%, respectively. It means that only 30 out of 735 available EOR projects are incorrectly identified by the proposed deep learning classifier. The model also demonstrates a small categorical cross-entropy of 0.1548 for the classification of the involved enhanced oil recovery techniques. Such a powerful classifier is required to select the most suitable EOR candidate for a given oil reservoir with limited field information.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".