Exploring the power of machine learning in analyzing the gas minimum miscibility pressure in hydrocarbons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP) plays a crucial role in subsurface gas injection processes. Hence, the accurate determination and analysis of the effective parameters on MMP are vital for a successful injection project. In this study, different Machine Learning (ML) algorithms are used to identify the most influential parameters on the MMP and develop reliable predictive models. A comprehensive database containing 812 samples (almost all the available experimental data set published from 1961 to 2022) is collected from 66 open literature studies. Six algorithms were employed for feature selection: Sequential Forward Selection (SFS), Sequential Backward Selection (SBS), Sequential Forward Floating Selection (SFFS), Sequential Backward Floating Selection (SBFS), Lasso Regression (LR), and Random Forest Feature Importance (RFFI). These feature selection algorithms were evaluated using a Decision Tree (DT) regressor. The most important features from 42 potential features were x C₅, x C₆, x C₂-C₆, MW C₇⁺, MW Gas, TC, and T, selected using the SBFS method based on the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE). Using the best-selected features, six predictive models were developed, including LR, DT, Random Forest (RF), Extra Trees (ET), Stacking Regressor (SR), and Voting Regressor (VR). The SR predictive model performed the best with RMSE and R2 values of 18.37 bars and 0.96, respectively, for the testing dataset. The outcomes of this research can be employed for any industrial process involving gas injection into hydrocarbon reservoirs to select the most relevant features in designing the experimental and field trials.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".