PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 17, 2026Scientific Reports0 citationsOpen Access

Cross-well machine learning prediction of sonic logs in Newfoundland and Labrador

View Full Paper
BZBahare ZareMHMohammad Mojammel HuqueLJLesley James

Key Points

  • Evaluate the ability to predict compressional slowness from non-sonic logs using machine learning.
  • Used a leakage-free, features-only strategy for blind cross-well prediction.
  • Built causal lag windows from past non-sonic logs without including sonic-derived channels.
  • Implemented depth conditioning and rank-aggregated feature selection with time-aware validation.
  • Compared three model types: Random Forest, Extreme Gradient Boosting, and BiLSTM.
  • XGBoost achieved an R² of 0.895 and MAE of 11.38 µs/m in cross-well validation.
  • Random Forest was competitive in several configurations.
  • BiLSTM underperformed compared to the other models.
  • Highlighting the importance of rigorous leakage control and feature engineering.

Abstract

Abstract Predicting compressional slowness (DTCO) from non-sonic logs can reduce acquisition cost, fill data gaps, and support field planning. We evaluate blind cross-well DTCO prediction on two offshore Newfoundland the reverse direction is lower, indicating inter-well distribution shift. RF performs competitively in several configurations, whereas BiLSTM underperforms on these data. Overall, rigorous leakage control, depth-aware feature engineering, and principled feature selection are key drivers of performance, and tree-based ensembles provide strong, data-efficient baselines for cross-well pseudo-sonic prediction.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zare et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/696b2655d2a12237a93499bahttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-36053-9
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper