ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparing the performance of machine learning methods in estimating the shear wave transit time in one of the reservoirs in southwest of Iran.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stacked machine learning models for accurate estimation of shear and Stoneley wave transit times in DSI log.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Accurate lithofacies identification in deep shale gas reservoirs via an optimized neural network recognition model, Qiongzhusi Formation, southern Sichuan.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Estimation of hydrogen solubility in aqueous solutions using machine learning techniques for hydrogen storage in deep saline aquifers.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Enhancing shear strength predictions of rocks using a hierarchical ensemble model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Shear wave transit time is a crucial parameter in petroleum engineering and geomechanical modeling with significant implications for reservoir performance and rock behavior prediction. Without accurate shear wave velocity information, geomechanical models are unable to fully characterize reservoir rock behavior, impacting operations such as hydraulic fracturing, production planning, and well stimulation. While traditional direct measurement methods are accurate but resource-intensive, indirect methods utilizing seismic and petrophysical data, as well as artificial intelligence algorithms, offer viable alternatives for shear wave velocity estimation. Machine learning algorithms have been proposed to predict shear wave velocity. However, until now, a comprehensive comparison has not been made on the common methods of machine learning that had an acceptable performance in previous researches. This research focuses on the prediction of shear wave transit time using prevalent machine learning techniques, along with a comparative analysis of these methods. To predict this parameter, various input features have been employed: compressional wave transit time, density, porosity, depth, Caliper log, and Gamma-ray log. Among the employed methods, the random forest approach demonstrated the most favorable performance, yielding R-squared and RMSE values of 0.9495 and 9.4567, respectively. Furthermore, the artificial neural network, LSBoost, Bayesian, multivariate regression, and support vector machine techniques achieved R-squared values of 0.878, 0.8583, 0.8471, 0.847 and 0.7975, RMSE values of 22.4068, 27.8158, 28.0138, 28.0240 and 37.5822, respectively. Estimation analysis confirmed the statistical reliability of the Random Forest model. The formulated strategies offer a promising framework applicable to shear wave velocity estimation in carbonate reservoirs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.