A Fluid Flow‐Based Deep Learning (FFDL) Architecture for Subsurface Flow Systems With Application to Geologic CO <sub>2</sub> Storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Prediction of the spatial‐temporal dynamics of the fluid flow in complex subsurface systems, such as geologic storage, is typically performed using advanced numerical simulation methods that solve the underlying governing physical equations. However, numerical simulation is computationally demanding and can limit the implementation of standard field management workflows, such as model calibration and optimization. Standard deep learning models, such as RUNET, have recently been proposed to alleviate the computational burden of physics‐based simulation models. Despite their powerful learning capabilities and computational appeal, deep learning models have important limitations, including lack of interpretability, extensive data needs, weak extrapolation capacity, and physical inconsistency that can affect their adoption in practical applications. We develop a Fluid Flow‐based Deep Learning (FFDL) architecture for spatial‐temporal prediction of important state variables in subsurface flow systems. The new architecture consists of a physics‐based encoder to construct physically meaningful latent variables, and a residual‐based processor to predict the evolution of the state variables. It uses physical operators that serve as nonlinear activation functions and imposes the general structure of the fluid flow equations to facilitate its training with data pertaining to the specific subsurface flow application of interest. A comprehensive investigation of FFDL, based on a field‐scale geologic storage model, is used to demonstrate the superior performance of FFDL compared to RUNET as a standard deep learning model. The results show that FFDL outperforms RUNET in terms of prediction accuracy, extrapolation power, and training data needs.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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".