2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2017.10.028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of machine learning methods for formation lithology identification: A comparison of tuning processes and model performances

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
47
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 230 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
47
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Our previous research shows that the ensemble methods are applicable to identify lithology classes given the number of logging data is limited. e gradient tree boosting model performs better in classifying the four sandstone classes than the SVM classifier, neural network classifier, and random forest classifier [10]. In this case study, the average precision scores of GTB classifier on the sandstone classes in DGF and HGF are 76.1% and 83.%, respectively, while the average precision scores of the optimized stacked boosting model are 77.5% and 84.2%, respectively.…”
Section: Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our previous research shows that the ensemble methods are applicable to identify lithology classes given the number of logging data is limited. e gradient tree boosting model performs better in classifying the four sandstone classes than the SVM classifier, neural network classifier, and random forest classifier [10]. In this case study, the average precision scores of GTB classifier on the sandstone classes in DGF and HGF are 76.1% and 83.%, respectively, while the average precision scores of the optimized stacked boosting model are 77.5% and 84.2%, respectively.…”
Section: Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 76%
“…Boosting approach is one of the ensemble methods. Moreover, our previous results showed that boosting method has a better capability in distinguishing sandstone classes compared with other classifiers [10]. Based on our previous work, this study conducts a meticulous evaluation over three boosting models, namely, AdaBoost, Gradient Tree Boosting (GTB), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) with 5-fold cross validation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Advanced statistical models have been introduced to automate the task of facies identification. These include methods such as non-parametric regression, factor analysis, principal component analysis, classification trees, clustering and techniques based on machine learning and artificial intelligence [9][10][11][12]. The electrofacies and the lithofacies are similar in attempting to identify and group rocks based on large-scale geologic and petrophysical features as shown by the log responses.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, it is required to automate the procedure of reservoir characterization and, at this point, computer technologies has shown suitable to lithology identification [2,3,4,5]. These computer technologies assist the geologists to avoid the unnecessary data analysis work and improve the lithology identification accuracy [6]. As a result, geologists can build better quantitative evaluation models of different rock properties, which can also improve overall evaluation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cross plots and Principal Component Analysis were used to lithology characterization and mineralogy description from geochem-ical logging tool data [10]. In [6], five machine learning methods were employed to classify the formation lithology identification using well log data samples. Horrocks et al [2] explores different machine learning algorithms and architectures for classifying lithologies using wireline data for coal exploration.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%