Comparative Machine Learning Frameworks for Forecasting CO2/CH4 Competitive Adsorption Ratios in Shale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate modeling of CO2/CH4 competitive adsorption behavior is a critical aspect of enhanced gas recovery associated with CO2 sequestration in organic-rich shales (CO2-ESGR). It not only improves the ultimate recovery of shale gas reservoirs that satisfies the increasing energy demand but also provides permanent geologic storage of atmospheric CO2 that contributes to the net-zero energy future. Determining a CO2/CH4 adsorption ratio is essential for the performance prediction of shale gas reservoirs and the evaluation of CO2 storage potential. However, experimental adsorption measurements are expensive and time-consuming that may not always be available for shale reservoirs of interest or at the investigated geologic conditions, and as a result, a sorption ratio cannot be assessed appropriately. Traditional models such as a Langmuir model are highly dependent on extensive experiments and cannot be widely applied. Therefore, a unified adsorption model must be developed to predict the CO2/CH4 competitive adsorption ratios, which is essential for CO2 sequestration and exploitation of natural gas from shale reservoirs. In recent years, the development of machine learning algorithms has significantly improved the accuracy and computational speed of prediction. In this work, we conducted a comparative machine learning algorithm study to effectively forecast the maximum CO2 adsorption capacity and CO2/CH4 competitive adsorption ratios. Four sensitive input parameters (i.e., temperature, total organic carbon, moisture content, and maximum adsorption capacity of CH4) were selected, along with their 50 data points collected from the existing literature. The artificial neural network (ANN), XGBoost, and Random Forest (RF) algorithms were investigated. By comparing the mean absolute errors (MAE) and coefficients of determination (R2), it was found that the ANN models can successfully forecast the required outputs within a 10% accuracy level. Furthermore, the descriptive statistics demonstrated that the CO2/CH4 competitive adsorption ratios were generally from 1.7 to 5.6. The proposed machine learning algorithm framework will provide insights beyond the isothermal conditions of classical adsorption models and the solid support to CO2-ESGR processes into which competitive adsorption can be a driven mechanism.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".