Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39943475›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Well Logs Guided by Rock Physics and Its Interpretation.

Ji Zhang, Guiping Liu, Zhen Wei, Shengge Li, Yeheya Zayier, Yuanfeng Cheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Ji ZhangSchool of Geology and Mining Engineering, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China.ORCID 0009-0000-3381-4930
Guiping LiuSchool of Geology and Mining Engineering, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China.
Zhen WeiSchool of Geology and Mining Engineering, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China.
Shengge LiSchool of Geology and Mining Engineering, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China.
Yeheya ZayierSchool of Geology and Mining Engineering, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China.
Yuanfeng ChengSchool of Geology and Mining Engineering, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China.

Funding

the Natural Science Foundation of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region 2022D01C422Tianchi Scholarship of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region ChengYuanfeng2022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The refinement of acquired well logs has traditionally relied on predefined rock physics models, albeit with their inherent limitations and assumptions. As an alternative, effective yet less explicit machine learning (ML) techniques have emerged. The integration of these two methodologies presents a promising new avenue. In our study, we used four ML algorithms: Random Forests (RF), Gradient Boosting Decision Trees (GBDT), Multilayer Perceptrons (MLP), and Linear Regression (LR), to predict porosity and clay volume fraction from well logs. Throughout the entire workflow, from feature engineering to outcome interpretation, our predictions are guided by rock physics principles, particularly the Gardner relations and the Larionov relations. Remarkably, while the predictions themselves are satisfactory, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis uncovers consistent patterns across the four algorithms, irrespective of their distinct underlying structures. By juxtaposing the SHAP explanations with rock physics concepts, we discover that all four algorithms align closely with rock physics principles, adhering to its cause-effect relationships. Nonetheless, even after intentionally excluding crucial controlling input features that would inherently compromise prediction accuracy, all four ML algorithms and the SHAP analysis continue to operate, albeit in a manner that seems irrational and starkly contradicts the fundamental principles of rock physics. This integration strategy facilitates a transition from solely mathematical explanations to a more philosophical interpretation of ML-based predictions, effectively dismantling the traditional black box nature of these ML models.

Indexed as

explainable artificial intelligence (XAI)machine learningrock physicsSHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)well logs

Identifiers

PMID39943475
PMCPMC11820327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.