ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Well Logs Guided by Rock Physics and Its Interpretation.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating physics and machine learning for unified seismic forward modeling and reservoir property inversion.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Study on Height Measurement for Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Materials Based on Residual Networks.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.