Enhancing Fluid Flow Pressure and Saturation Prediction Accuracy and Reducing Uncertainty with Committee Machine – Illinois Basin Decatur Project (IBDP) as a Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presentation at the 17th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies GHGT-17 held in Calgary, Canada, October 20-24, 2024. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a way to play a critical role in the global transition to a low-emission economy. Current progress is hampered by a number of factors, among which the lack of risk-informed design tools and decision support frameworks is seen as a major roadblock. Significant interest exists in using artificial intelligence to accelerate CCS site feasibility studies, as well as to facilitate the permit application process. Existing works commonly train a single deep learning model. This work investigates the feasibility of using a conventional ensemble learning (committee machine) technique to further improve prediction accuracy. Ensemble-based algorithms generally improve over individual base learners in terms of robustness and accuracy. Deep ensembles, however, are time-consuming to create and train. A pragmatic question is whether small-sized ensembles may lead to prediction improvement. Here we evaluated the efficacy of an ensemble learning technique using the latent spectral model (LSM), an efficient deep neural operator algorithm, as base learners. Preliminary results, obtained using the Illinois Basin-Decatur Project (IBDP) carbon sequestration data/model, show that small-sized ensembles can improve prediction over the base learners, achieving prediction accuracy of ~1.6 psi root mean square error (RMSE) on pressure (relative the average reservoir pressure of 3150 psi), and less than 1.3% for saturation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".