Monthly Archives: June 2019

Geoscience Machine Learning bits and bobs – data inspection

Posted on by
Reply

If you have not read Geoscience Machine Learning bits and bobs – introduction, please do so first as I go through the objective and outline of this series, as well as a review of the dataset I will be using, which is from the  2016 SEG Machine LEarning contest.

*** September 2020 UPDATE ***

Although I have more limited time now, compared to 2016,  I am very excited to be participating in the 2020 FORCE Machine Predicted Lithology challenge. Most new work and blog posts will be about this new contest instead of the 2016 one.

***************************

OK, let’s begin!

With each post, I will add a new notebook to the GitHub repo here. The notebook that goes with this post is  called 01 – Data inspection.

Data inspection

The first step after loading the dataset is to create a Pandas DataFrame. With the describe method I get a lot of information for free:

Indeed, from the the first row in the summary I learn that about 20% of samples in the photoelectric effect column PE are missing.

I can use pandas.isnull to tell me, for each well, if a column has any null values, and sum to get the number of null values missing, again for each column.

for well in training_data['Well Name'].unique():
    print(well)
    w = training_data.loc[training_data['Well Name'] == well] 
    print (w.isnull().values.any())
    print (w.isnull().sum(), '\n')

Simple and quick, the output tells met, for example, that the well ALEXANDER D is missing 466 PE samples, and Recruit F9 is missing 12.

However,  the printout is neither easy, nor pleasant to read, as it is a long list like this:

SHRIMPLIN
False
Facies       0
Formation    0
Well Name    0
Depth        0
GR           0
ILD_log10    0
DeltaPHI     0
PHIND        0
PE           0
NM_M         0
RELPOS       0
dtype: int64 

ALEXANDER D
True
Facies         0
Formation      0
Well Name      0
Depth          0
GR             0
ILD_log10      0
DeltaPHI       0
PHIND          0
PE           466
NM_M           0
RELPOS         0
dtype: int64 

Recruit F9
True
Facies        0
Formation     0
Well Name     0
Depth         0
GR            0
ILD_log10     0
DeltaPHI      0
PHIND         0
PE           12
NM_M          0
RELPOS        0
dtype: int64
...
...

 

From those I can see that, apart from the issues with the PE log, GR has some high values in SHRIMPLIN, and so on…

All of the above is critical to determine the data imputation strategy, which is the topic of one of the next posts; but first in the next post I will use a number of visualizations of  the data, to examine its distribution by well and by facies, and to explore relationships among variables.

Geoscience Machine Learning bits and bobs – introduction

Posted on by
1

Bits and what?

After wetting (hopefully) your appetite with the Machine Learning quiz / teaser I am now moving on to a series of posts that I decided to title “Geoscience Machine Learning bits and bobs”.

OK, BUT fist of all, what does ‘bits and bobs‘ mean? It is a (mostly) British English expression that means “a lot of small things”.

Is it a commonly used expression? If you are curious enough you can read this post about it on the Not one-off British-isms blog. Or you can just look at the two Google Ngram plots below: the first is my updated version of the one in the post, comparing the usage of the expression in British vs. US English; the second is a comparison of its British English to that of the more familiar “bits and pieces” (not exactly the same according to the author of the blog, but the Cambridge Dictionary seems to contradict the claim).

I’ve chosen this title because I wanted to distill, in one spot, some of the best collective bits of Machine Learning that came out during, and in the wake of the 2016 SEG Machine Learning contest, including:

  • The best methods and insights from the submissions, particularly the top 4 teams
  • Things that I learned myself, during and after the contest
  • Things that I learned from blog posts and papers published after the contest

I will touch on a lot of topics but I hope that – in spite of the title’s pointing to a random assortment of things –  what I will have created in the end is a cohesive blog narrative and a complete, mature Machine Learning pipeline in a Python notebook.

*** September 2020 UPDATE ***

Although I have more limited time these days, compared to 2016,  I am very excited to be participating in the 2020 FORCE Machine Predicted Lithology challenge. Most new work and blog posts will be about this new contest instead of the 2016 one.

***************************

Some background on the 2016 ML contest

The goal of the SEG contest was for teams to train a machine learning algorithm to predict rock facies from well log data. Below is the (slightly modified) description of the data form the original notebook by Brendon Hall:

The data is originally from a class exercise from The University of Kansas on Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems. This exercise is based on a consortium project to use machine learning techniques to create a reservoir model of the largest gas fields in North America, the Hugoton and Panoma Fields. For more info on the origin of the data, see Bohling and Dubois (2003) and Dubois et al. (2007).

This dataset is from nine wells (with 4149 examples), consisting of a set of seven predictor variables and a rock facies (class) for each example vector and validation (test) data (830 examples from two wells) having the same seven predictor variables in the feature vector. Facies are based on examination of cores from nine wells taken vertically at half-foot intervals. Predictor variables include five from wireline log measurements and two geologic constraining variables that are derived from geologic knowledge. These are essentially continuous variables sampled at a half-foot sample rate.

The seven predictor variables are:

The nine discrete facies (classes of rocks) are:

Tentative topics for this series

  • List of previous works (in this post)
  • Data inspection
  • Data visualization
  • Data sufficiency
  • Data imputation
  • Feature augmentation
  • Model training and evaluation
  • Connecting the bits: a full pipeline

List of previous works (comprehensive, to the best of my knowledge)

In each post I will make a point to explicitly reference whether a particular bit (or a bob) comes from a submitted notebook by a team, a previously unpublished notebook of mine, a blog post, or a paper.

However, I’ve also compiled below a list of all the published works, for those that may be interested.

The contest’s original article published by Brendon Hall on The Leading Edge, and the accompanying notebook

The Github repo with all teams’ submissions.

Two blog posts by Matt Hall of Agile Scientific, here and here

The published summary of the contest by Brendon Hall and Matt Hall on The Leading Edge

An SEG extended abstract on using gradient boosting on the contest dataset

An arXiv e-print paper on using a ConvNet on the contest dataset

Abstract for a talk at the 2019 CSEG / CSPG Calgary Geoconvention

 

Machine Learning quiz – part 3 of 3

Posted on by
1

In my last two posts I published part 1 and part 2 of this Machine Learning quiz. If you have not read them, please do (and cast your votes) before you read part 3 below.

QUIZ, part 3: vote responses and (some) answers

In part 1 I asked which predictions looked “better”: those from model A or those from model B (Figure 1)?

Figure 1

As a reminder, both model A and model B were trained to predict the same labeled facies picked by a geologist on core, shown on the left columns (they are identical) of the respective model panels. The right columns in each panels are the predictions.

The question is asked out of context, with no information given about the training process, and or difference in data manipulation (if any) and/or model algorithm used. Very unfair, I know!  And yet, ~78% of 54 respondent clearly indicated their preference for model A. My sense is that this is because model A looks overall smoother and has less of the extra misclassified thin layers.

Response 1

In part 2, I presented the two predictions, this time accompanied by a the confusion matrix for each model (Figure 2).

Figure 2

I asked again which model would be considered better [1] and this was the result:

Response 2a

Although there were far fewer votes (not as robust a statistical sample) I see that the proportion of votes is very similar to that in the previous response, and decidedly in favor of model A, again. However, the really interesting learning, and to me surprising, came from the next answer (Response 2b): about 82% of the 11 respondents believe the performance scores in the confusion matrix to be realistic.

Response 2b

Why was it a surprise? It is now time to reveal the trick…..

…which is that the scores in part 2, shown in the confusion matrices of Figure 2, were calculated on the whole well, for training and testing together!!

A few more details:

  • I used default parameters for both models
  • I used a single 70/30 train/test split (the same random split for both models) with no crossvalidation

which is, in essence, how to NOT do Machine Learning!

In Figure 3, I added a new column on the right of each prediction showing in red which part of the result is merely memorized, and in black which part is interpreted (noise?). Notice that for this particular well (the random 70/30 split was done on all wells together) the percentages are 72.5% and 27.5%.

I’ve also added the proper confusion matrix for each model, which used only the test set. These are more realistic (and poor) results.

Figure 3

So, going back to that last response: again, with 11 votes I don’t have solid statistics, but with that caveat in mind one might argue that this is a way you could be ‘sold’ unrealistic (as in over-optimistic) ML results.

At least you could sell them by being vague about the details to those not familiar with the task of machine classification of rock facies and its difficulties (see for example this paper for a great discussion about resolution limitations inherent  in using logs (machine) as opposed to core (human geologist).

Acknowledgments

A big thank you goes to Jesper (Way of the Geophysicist) for his encouragement and feedback, and for brainstorming with me on how to deliver this post series.

[1] notice that, as pointed out in part 2, model predictions were slightly different from those part 1 because I’d forgotten to set the random seed to be the same in the two pipelines; but not very much, the overall ‘look’ was very much the same.