Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica e Applicata
OGS Website BGTA homepage
About the Journal
Contacts
To Authors
On-line Submission
Subscriptions
Forthcoming
On-line First
The Historical First Issue
Issues

2019 Vol. 60
1 / 2

2018 Vol. 59
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / Suppl. 1

2017 Vol. 58
1 / 2 / 3 / 4

2016 Vol. 57
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / Suppl. 1

2015 Vol. 56
1 / 2 / 3 / 4

2014 Vol. 55
1 / 2 / 3 / 4

2013 Vol. 54
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / Suppl. 1 / Suppl. 2

2012 Vol. 53
1 / 2 / 3 / 4

2011 Vol. 52
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / Suppl. 1

2010 Vol. 51
1 / 2-3 / 4 / Suppl. 1

2009 Vol. 50
1 / 2 / 3 / 4

2008 Vol. 49
1 / 2 / 3-4 / Suppl. 1

2007 Vol. 48
1 / 2 / 3 / 4

2006 Vol. 47
1-2 / 3 / 4

2005 Vol. 46
1 / 2-3 / 4

2004 Vol. 45
1-2 / 3 / 4 / Suppl. 1 / Suppl. 2

2003 Vol. 44
1 / 2 / 3-4

2002 Vol. 43
1-2 / 3-4

2001 Vol. 42
1-2 / 3-4

2000 Vol. 41
1 / 2 / 3-4

1999 Vol. 40
1 / 2 / 3-4

1998 Vol. 39
1 / 2 / 3 / 4

1997 Vol. 38
1-2 / 3-4

1995 Vol. 37
145 / 146 / 147 / 148 / Suppl. 1

1994 Vol. 36
141-144 / Suppl. 1

1993 Vol. 35
137-138 / 139 / 140

1992 Vol. 34
133 / 134-135 / 136

1991 Vol. 33
129 / 130-131 / 132

 
 

Vol. 60, n.1, March 2019
pp. 69-80

Comparison of different Machine Learning algorithms for lithofacies classification from well logs

P. Dell'Aversana

Received: 19 February 2018; accepted: 23 October 2018

Abstract

Machine Learning algorithms can support the work of lithofacies classification using well logs. A wide range of automatic classifiers is available for that purpose. In order to investigate about the accuracy and the effectiveness of different methods, I compare six supervised learning algorithms. Using multiple data sets of composite logs, I discuss the entire workflow applied to two wells. The workflow includes the following main steps: 1) statistical data analysis; 2) training of six classification algorithms; 3) quantitative evaluation of the performance of each individual algorithm; 4) simultaneous lithofacies classification using all the six algorithms; 5) results comparison and reporting. Using cross-validation tests and confusion matrices, I perform a preliminary ranking of the six classifiers. Although the different algorithms show different performances, all the methods produce mutually consistent classification results. Consequently, I set a comprehensive workflow that includes all the classifiers working in parallel in the same Machine Learning framework. I show through tests on real data that this "systemic approach" allows efficient training of many algorithms, easy comparison of the results, and robust classification of multiple well data. This methodology is particularly useful when quick lithofacies classification/prediction is required for making real-time decisions, such as in case of well-site geological operations.



Download PDF complete



back to table of contents