MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401466494 · doi:10.1002/cjce.25433

Advanced <scp>EOR</scp> screening methodology based on <scp>LightGBM</scp> and random forest: A classification problem with imbalanced data

2024· article· en· W4401466494 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Masoud Seyyedattar, Majid Afshar, Sohrab Zendehboudi, Stephen Butt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnhanced oil recoveryDecision treeComputer scienceRandom forestArtificial liftPetroleum engineeringMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In an unstable oil market with volatile prices due to various natural and geopolitical factors, it is crucial for oil‐producing companies to enhance the value of their assets by improving the recovery factors of petroleum reservoirs. Primary recovery through natural depletion or artificial lift and secondary recovery using waterflooding and immiscible gas injection typically recover no more than 10%–40% of the available reserves. A significant portion of the hydrocarbons remain unproduced if enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods are not implemented. EOR projects are extremely costly, complex, and usually have long lead times from the decision‐making and design phases to pilot and full‐field implementations. Therefore, oil and gas operator companies need reliable insights into the best possible EOR options from the early stages of any field development planning. Since screening potential EOR choices is the first step in deciding future production scenarios, a smart EOR screening tool can add significant value by streamlining the EOR decision‐making process. In this study, we developed an EOR screening tool based on two advanced machine learning classification algorithms, random forest and light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM). These tree‐based ensemble learning classifiers were trained on an extensive dataset of 1384 worldwide EOR implementations, encompassing various reservoir conditions and reservoir rock and fluid properties as the feature space, to predict the EOR type as the class label. Considering EOR screening as a classification problem, an essential aspect of model development would be addressing the data imbalance of EOR datasets. To tackle this issue, the adaptive synthetic (ADASYN) sampling method was used to reduce classification bias by oversampling the training sets to achieve uniform class distributions. We designed an iterative model development procedure in which the classifiers were trained and tested on various training and test subsets split by stratified random sampling. For each classifier, the classification results at each iteration were used to build the confusion matrix and calculate model evaluation metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, and F1–score), which were then averaged over all independent runs to provide a fair assessment of classification performance. Moreover, binary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the classifier predictions and improvements obtained by oversampling. The results showed that both random forest and LightGBM classifiers made accurate class predictions, with LightGBM achieving slightly better classification performance in each modelling scenario (with or without oversampling). In both cases, the oversampling of the training dataset resulted in significant improvement of the classifiers, as evidenced by higher values of the evaluation metrics, leading to considerably more accurate EOR type predictions; specifically, oversampling boosted the prediction accuracy of the random forest model from 78.3% to 89.5% and the LightGBM model from 77.5% to 90.2%. Additionally, feature importance rankings provided valuable insights into which input variables had the greatest impact on model development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicOil and Gas Production TechniquesFrench-language works237,207