MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390502498 · doi:10.3390/pr12010110

Oil Production Optimization Using Q-Learning Approach

2024· article· en· W4390502498 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity Canada West
FundersAlzahra University
KeywordsOil productionEclipseProduction (economics)Petroleum engineeringProduction rateComputer scienceOil wellProduction system (computer science)Mathematical optimizationProcess engineeringEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an approach for optimizing the oil recovery factor by determining initial oil production rates. The proposed method utilizes the Q-learning method and the reservoir simulator (Eclipse 100) to achieve the desired objective. The system identifies the most efficient initial oil production rates by conducting a sufficient number of iterations for various initial oil production rates. To validate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, a case study is conducted using a numerical reservoir model (SPE9) with simplified configurations of two producer wells and one injection well. The simulation results highlight the capabilities of the Q-learning method in assisting reservoir engineers by enhancing the recommended initial rates.

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.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.248 · 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