ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessing proxy and AI models performance in waterflooding optimization.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Water flooding remains one of the most widely used improved oil recovery (IOR) methods, even after decades of hydrocarbon production and the application of various IOR techniques. However, real reservoir simulations are computationally expensive and time-consuming due to the complexity of reservoir models. To address this, researchers increasingly rely on artificial intelligence and neural network-based proxy models as faster alternatives. While proxy models reduce computational effort, their ability to predict reservoir behavior remains a challenge reliably. This study evaluates the reliability of proxy models in optimization tasks. The Punq-S3 benchmark reservoir model was used to optimize well control parameters and maximize net present value (NPV) through two approaches: one based on proxy models and the other on full-physics reservoir simulation. Four deep learning algorithms (ANN, LSTM, GRU, and EL) were combined with two design of experiment techniques (Taguchi and Latin hypercube sampling) to generate eight proxy models. The particle swarm optimization and Bayesian optimization algorithms were selected to optimize the injection and production strategy for the two approaches. after optimization and comparison of the results, it was observed that despite the constructed proxy models exhibited acceptable predictive performance in terms of statistical metrics (e.g., RMSE, R²), the optimization results they yielded significantly deviated from those based on the full-physics reservoir model. This reveals a critical trade-off between computational efficiency and decision-making reliability. While proxy models offer a cost-effective alternative for rapid predictions, caution is needed when applying them to optimization tasks, where minor prediction errors can lead to substantially different outcomes. This study highlights the importance of evaluating proxy models not only based on accuracy metrics but also on their ability to capture optimization-relevant dynamics.
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.