MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402960300 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-72278-2

Qualitative and quantitative reservoir characterization using seismic inversion based on particle swarm optimization and genetic algorithm: a comparative case study

2024· article· en· W4402960300 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ravi Kant, S. P. Maurya, Kumar Hemant Singh, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Anoop Kumar Tiwari

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity Grants CommissionPrince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationReservoir modelingAlgorithmComputer scienceGenetic algorithmInversion (geology)MetaheuristicData miningMathematical optimizationGeologyMachine learningSeismologyMathematicsGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate reservoir characterization is necessary to effectively monitor, manage, and increase production. A seismic inversion methodology using a genetic algorithm (GA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) technique is proposed in this study to characterize the reservoir both qualitatively and quantitatively. It is usually difficult and expensive to map deeper reservoirs in exploratory operations when using conventional approaches for reservoir characterization hence inversion based on advanced technique (GA and PSO) is proposed in this study. The main goal is to use GA and PSO to significantly lower the fitness (error) function between real seismic data and modeled synthetic data, which will allow us to estimate subsurface properties and accurately characterize the reservoir. Both techniques estimate subsurface properties in a comparable manner. Consequently, a qualitative and quantitative comparison is conducted between these two algorithms. Using two synthetic data and one real data from the Blackfoot field in Canada, the study examined subsurface acoustic impedance and porosity in the inter-well zone. Porosity and acoustic impedance are layer features, but seismic data is an interface property, hence these characteristics provide more useful and applicable reservoir information. The inverted results aid in the understanding of seismic data by providing incredibly high-resolution images of the subsurface. Both the GA and the PSO algorithms deliver outstanding results for both simulated and real data. The inverted section accurately delineated a high porosity zone ( $$>20\%$$ ) that supported the high seismic amplitude anomaly by having a low acoustic impedance (6000–8500 m/s $$*$$ g/cc). This unusual zone is categorized as a reservoir (sand channel) and is located in the 1040–1065 ms time range. In this inversion process, after 400 iterations, the fitness error falls from 1 to 0.88 using GA optimization, compared to 1 to 0.25 using PSO. The convergence time for GA is 670,680 s, but the convergence time for PSO optimization is 356,400 s, showing that the former requires $$88\%$$ more time than the latter.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207