Advancing Geotechnical Evaluation of Wellbores: A Robust and Precise Model for Predicting Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of Rocks in Oil and Gas Wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the efficacy of various machine learning models for predicting the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rocks in oil and gas wells, which are essential for ensuring wellbore stability and optimizing drilling operations. The investigation encompasses Linear Regression, ensemble methods (including Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, XGBoost, and LightGBM), support vector machine-based regression (SVM-SVR), and multilayer perceptron artificial neural network (MLP-ANN) models. The results demonstrate that XGBoost and Gradient Boosting offer superior predictive accuracy for UCS in drillability, as indicated by low Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) values of 3.87% and 4.18%, respectively, and high R2 scores (0.8542 for XGBoost). These models emerge as optimal choices for UCS prediction focused on drillability, offering increased accuracy and reliability in practical engineering scenarios. Ensemble methods and MLP-ANN emerge as frontrunners, providing valuable tools for improving wellbore stability assessments, optimizing drilling parameter selection, and facilitating informed decision-making processes in oil and gas drilling operations. Moreover, this study lays a foundation for further research in drillability-centred predictive modelling for geotechnical parameters, advancing our understanding of rock behaviour under drilling conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".