ArticleScientific reports2025
A deep learning model for contact angle prediction in carbonate reservoirs under smart water assisted foam injection (SWAF).
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the challenges in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) from carbonate reservoirs, this study investigates the application of machine learning models to predict contact angles under Smart Water Assisted Foam (SWAF) injection. SWAF, as an innovative and environmentally friendly approach, enhances sweep efficiency by altering reservoir rock wettability and controlling gas mobility. The primary objective is to develop accurate models for predicting contact angles based on input features such as ion concentrations (NaHCO₃, NaCl, CaCl₂, MgCl₂, KCl, Na₂SO₄), pressure, temperature, and contact time. The initial dataset comprised 1,615 samples from validated sources, which were expanded to 13,032 samples using data augmentation techniques including Gaussian noise, scaling transformations, and physically constrained Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). The models examined include Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), XGBoost, Support Vector Regression (SVR), Random Forest, and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP). Data were split into training, validation, and test sets in a 60:20:20 ratio, and hyperparameters were optimized using grid search combined with 5-fold cross-validation. Results indicate that XGBoost achieved the best performance (RMSE = 0.09°; R² = 0.99997), followed by Random Forest (RMSE = 0.13°; R² = 0.99994), SVR (RMSE = 0.32°; R² = 0.99963), MLP (RMSE = 0.39°; R² = 0.99944), and CNN (RMSE = 1.48°; R² = 0.997). While CNN serves as a novel deep learning benchmark for exploring complex pattern recognition in tabular data, tree-based models like XGBoost outperform it for this tabular SWAF dataset, highlighting the value of ensemble methods. Feature importance analysis revealed the dominant influence of MgCl₂ (28%) and Na₂SO₄ (22%), whereas pressure had the minimal effect (~ 3%). Temperature exhibited an inverse relationship with contact angle. These models provide powerful tools for optimizing SWAF processes and reducing the need for costly experimental work. Limitations include the exclusion of crude oil properties and field-scale data. Future work is recommended to extend these models with dynamic and field-scale datasets to enhance practical applicability in the oil industry.
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.