MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378231245 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.2023101054

Analysis of Well Production Data Using Functional Data Analysis

2023· article· en· W4378231245 on OpenAlexaff
Hamidreza Hamdi, Emily Zirbes, Mário Costa Sousa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePrincipal component analysisTime seriesProduction (economics)Data miningProxy (statistics)Multivariate statisticsData setStochastic processSet (abstract data type)AlgorithmStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This study employs novel ensemble-based statistical techniques for type-well analysis to quickly analyze the production data from multiple wells in a reservoir. The method is based on functional principal component analysis (FPCA) that accounts for measurement noise and the sparsity of the production timeseries. In particular, the sparse FPCA method is used, which can extract the underlying random process from an ensemble of sparse production timeseries to predict the smooth trend of the well production data. The production from wells with short histories is also extrapolated using the stochastic information extracted from the wells with longer production. This approach is applied to analyze production data from 500 wells in an unconventional tight oil reservoir. In addition, the multivariate FPCA is utilized herein, for the first time, to jointly project the simulated surface condensate and gas rates from an unconventional gas condensate model by accounting for the correlations between the production phases. This approach is utilized to effectively replace the full numerical simulator by alternatively using an efficient timeseries proxy that can generate the full simulation output for any given set of input variables almost instantaneously.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.008
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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207