ArticleScientific reports2026
Integrating physics and machine learning for unified seismic forward modeling and reservoir property inversion.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In petroleum exploration and production, accurate reservoir characterization and seismic modeling depend on linking macroscale seismic data with microscale reservoir properties. Prior research has predominantly concentrated on forward modeling or inversion processes in isolation. As a result, a comprehensive multiscale framework that seamlessly integrates both approaches remains absent. In this study, to address this gap, a machine learning (ML)-based petrophysical inversion method was developed. This method was integrated into a unified multiscale workflow by combining rock physics modeling, seismic modeling, and seismic inversion techniques. This study was based on synthetic data. Initially, predefined reservoir petrophysical parameters were used as inputs to rock physics equations to forward model elastic parameters. Following this, seismic forward modeling was performed to generate seismic amplitude-versus-offset (AVO) data. Subsequently, seismic AVO inversion was carried out to recover elastic parameters from the AVO data, which were then converted into reservoir petrophysical parameters using ML techniques. As a result, forward modeling revealed that porosity (𝜙) significantly affects seismic AVO responses, whereas clay volume (C) and water saturation (Sw) had minimal impact. Conversely, seismic AVO inversion, constrained by wavelet effects and input uncertainties, produced a filtered and biased representation of elastic parameters. This compromised the accuracy of subsequent ML-based petrophysical inversion, particularly for Sw in oil reservoirs and C in gas reservoirs. Consequently, 𝜙 inversions demonstrated high reliability, whereas Sw and C predictions showed greater uncertainty. Therefore, by integrating petrophysics with ML, the proposed methodology effectively bridges micro-properties with macro-seismic signals, offering a precise and unified multiscale approach for quantitative seismic modeling and reservoir characterization. Furthermore, the present study capitalizes on rock-physics-generated data, providing ground truth and enabling rigorous, multiscale uncertainty analysis beyond the capabilities of isolated methods. Additionally, it can be seamlessly applied to real-field data. Finally, a comparative discussion between ML-based and physics-based methodologies was performed, leading to the recommendation of implementing explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) for improved interpretability and prediction performance.
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.