Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34870035›Full record

ArticleACS omega2021

Support Vector Regression Based on the Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Tight Oil Recovery Prediction.

Shihui Huang, Leng Tian, Jinshui Zhang, Xiaolong Chai, Hengli Wang, Hongling Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS omega, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Shihui HuangState Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Prospecting, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China.
Leng TianState Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Prospecting, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5796-7154
Jinshui ZhangState Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Prospecting, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China.
Xiaolong ChaiState Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Prospecting, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China.
Hengli WangState Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Prospecting, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5997-8474
Hongling ZhangState Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Prospecting, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tight oil fields are affected by factors such as geology, technology, and development, so it is difficult to directly obtain an accurate recovery rate. The accurate prediction of the recovery rate is very important for measuring reservoir development effects and dynamic analysis. Traditional tight oil recovery predictions are obtained by conventional formula calculations and curve fitting, which are less applicable and very different from actual conditions. Machine learning can make accurate predictions based on a large amount of data, so it is used to predict the recovery rate of tight oil reservoirs. The recovery rate of 200 wells in M tight oil reservoirs ranges widely between 8.8 and 27.6%, with more than 14 factors affecting the recovery rate, and the overall declining rule is not clear. Therefore, this research combines the production data of horizontal wells with random forest, support vector regression (SVR), and other methods, establishing recovery prediction models to gain more accurate recovery predictions. First, the Pearson correlation coefficient and the random forest (RF) machine learning method are used to measure and calculate the degree of nonlinear influence of factors on oil well recovery. Second, SVR and optimization of support vector regression by particle swarm (PSO-SVR) recovery prediction models are developed and tested, with 75% of the data being used to train SVR and PSO-SVR recovery prediction models and 25% to verify the model. Third, the accuracy of the results of these two SVR oil recovery prediction models is compared, suggesting that when the data are scarce, the optimized model is more accurate than the unoptimized one by 10.85%. Thus, this model can assure a relatively more accurate prediction of oil recovery. Machine learning recovery prediction, being more accurate and applicable, enables the data of factors such as construction and production systems to be optimized in the future, enhancing the oil recovery rate.

Identifiers

PMID34870035
PMCPMC8638026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.