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 OpenAlex
Masoud Seyyedattar, Majid Afshar, Sohrab Zendehboudi, Stephen Butt

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

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.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.238
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