{"title":"A Comparison of Machine Learning Processes for Classification of Rock Units Using Well Log Data","authors":"V. Carreira, C. P. Neto, R. Bijani","doi":"10.3997/2214-4609.201801520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary This work aims to define a comparison between a Kohonen SOM, an euclidean and a mahalanobean classificators. This comparison uses two well log data from a synthetic syneclises sedimentary basin type. It is remarkable that the Mahalanobis classifier produced a higher error when compared to the Euclidean classifier and the SOM. The SOM presented better results for the two synthetic examples, with an error of 0.7% for the first well and 1.5% for the second. In contrast, Mahalanobis and Euclidean classifiers presented an error of 18.3% and 1.7% respectively for the first well and 11.3% and 6% for the second.","PeriodicalId":325587,"journal":{"name":"80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2018","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2018","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201801520","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Summary This work aims to define a comparison between a Kohonen SOM, an euclidean and a mahalanobean classificators. This comparison uses two well log data from a synthetic syneclises sedimentary basin type. It is remarkable that the Mahalanobis classifier produced a higher error when compared to the Euclidean classifier and the SOM. The SOM presented better results for the two synthetic examples, with an error of 0.7% for the first well and 1.5% for the second. In contrast, Mahalanobis and Euclidean classifiers presented an error of 18.3% and 1.7% respectively for the first well and 11.3% and 6% for the second.