Modeling with Confidence: Leveraging Conformal Prediction for Calibrated Machine Learning Based Mechanical and Petrophysical Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Machine learning (ML) is revolutionizing reservoir characterization practices by directly using well log and drilling data. However, deterministic predictions of ML models can be misleading and result in expensive mistakes. Hence, uncertainties in ML-predicted mechanical and/or petrophysical properties need to be well quantified. By leveraging a distribution-free and computationally efficient uncertainty quantification method called Conformal Prediction (CP), we can derive calibrated ML models and quantify the uncertainties in their predictions. Several ML models are developed for permeability and elastic modulus prediction in a geothermal site in south Saskatchewan. The Catboost model outperforms other models achieving an R2 of 0.91 and 0.92 for permeability and elastic modulus, respectively. A Conformal Prediction is then built on the selected ML models to complement the predictions with valid measures of prediction intervals with 95% coverage. For a test well, where two different lab-measured permeabilities exist, more than 90% of measured permeabilities fall within the 95% prediction interval. Triaxial geomechanical test results are also comfortably within the bounds of the 95% interval. This suggests that these models provide reliable predictions with limited uncertainties. This paper underscores the crucial role of uncertainty quantification of ML-based prediction models. The study demonstrates how quantifying uncertainty can enhance our confidence in ML-predicted reservoir properties for rigorous subsurface reservoir characterization.
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".