Physics-guided deep-learning inversion method for the interpretation of noisy logging-while-drilling resistivity measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Deep learning (DL) inversion is a promising method for real-time interpretation of logging-while-drilling (LWD) resistivity measurements for well-navigation applications. In this context, measurement noise may significantly affect inversion results. Existing publications examining the effects of measurement noise on DL inversion results are scarce. We develop a method to generate training data sets and construct DL architectures that enhance the robustness of DL inversion methods in the presence of noisy LWD resistivity measurements. We use two synthetic resistivity models to test the three approaches that explicitly consider the presence of noise: (1) adding noise to the measurements in the training set, (2) augmenting the training set by replicating it and adding varying noise realizations and (3) adding a noise layer in the DL architecture. Numerical results confirm that each of the three approaches enhances the noise-robustness of the trained DL inversion modules, yielding better inversion results—in both the predicted earth model and measurements—compared to the basic DL inversion and also to traditional gradient-based inversion results. A combination of the second and third approaches delivers the best results.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".