Modeling residue formation from crude oil oxidation using tree-based machine learning approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In-situ combustion (ISC) offers a compelling solution for enhancing oil recovery, particularly for heavy crude oils. This process involves the oxidation and pyrolysis of hydrocarbons, generating heat and depositing fuel in the combustion front. In this work, the thermo-oxidative profiles and residue formation of crude oils during thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) were modeled using 3075 experimental data points from 18 crude oils with API gravities ranging from 5 to 42. Four advanced tree-based machine learning algorithms comprising gradient boosting with categorical features support (CatBoost), light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM), random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) were utilized to develop accurate predictive models. The results indicated that CatBoost outperformed the other models, achieving mean absolute relative error (MARE) values of 4.95% for the entire dataset, 5.92% for the testing subset, and 4.71% for the training subset. Moreover, it recorded a determination coefficient (R 2 ) value of 0.9993, highlighting its exceptional predictive capability. Furthermore, temperature was identified as the most influential factor affecting residual crude oil content, exhibiting a significant negative correlation, while API gravity also showed a negative impact. Conversely, asphaltene, resin, and heating rate positively correlated with residual content. Finally, the leverage method demonstrated that only 2.14% of the data were identified as suspected, with no out-of-leverage points detected, underscoring the reliability of the CatBoost model and the gathered experimental data. Effective management of fuel consumption and residue formation is crucial for maintaining the ISC process, and the CatBoost model has demonstrated strong predictive capabilities that support this objective.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".