ARTICLE

The effect of supervised feature extraction techniques on the facies classification using machine learning

HAMID REZA OKHOVVAT1 MOHAMMAD ALI RIAHI2 MOHAMMAD MAHDI ABEDI3
Show Less
1 Petroleum, Mining and Materials Engineering Department, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran,
2 Institute of Geophysics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran,
3 BCAM - Basque Center for Applied Mathematics, 48009 Bilbao, Spain,
JSE 2022, 31(6), 563–577;
Submitted: 9 June 2025 | Revised: 9 June 2025 | Accepted: 9 June 2025 | Published: 9 June 2025
© 2025 by the Authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

Okhowvata, H.R., Riahib, M.A. and Abedi, M.M., 2022. The effect of supervised feature extraction techniques on the facies classification using machine learning. Journal of Seismic Exploration, 31: 563-577. The widely accepted supervised machine learning classification algorithms are used for the semi-automating of the feature extraction process. In the machine learning facies classification process, each wireline log is a feature in the feature space. Since features are important in classification decisions, using suitable features improves the performance of a classification algorithm. Three feature sets were compared containing the original conventional features (well-logs), and the extracted features from the unsupervised PCA and supervised FDA methods, using two classifiers algorithms, namely SVM and RF. The FDA showed that improvement in the performance of facies classifiers while PCA can even deteriorate the results. An Fl score of 0.61 averaged over the available 20 folds for the combination of FDA feature extractor and RF classifier is achieved. This represents about a 5% improvement in the prediction accuracy, compared to the conventional use of wells information as features. Moreover, the Fl score was achieved without the usage of feature extraction. This value is 0.56 by using all 7 conventional features (well-logs), thus 5 percent lower than using FDA with only 3 first features.

Keywords
facies classification
Fisher Discriminant Analysis (FDA)
machine learning
Principle Component Analysis (PCA)
Random Forest (RF)
Support Vector Machine (SVM)
References
  1. Bestagini, P., Lipari, V. and Tubaro, S., 2017. A machine learning approach to facies
  2. classification using well logs. Expanded Abstr., 87th Ann. Internat. SEG Mtg.,
  3. Houston: 2137-2142.
  4. Breiman, L., 2001, Random forests. Mach. Learn., 45: 5-32.
  5. Mosser, P. and Briceno, A., 2017. https://github.com/seg/2016-mlcontest/tree/master/LA
  6. Team.
  7. Chen, T.Q. and Guestrin, C., 2016. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System.
  8. arXiv: 1603.02754v3.
  9. Cheung, Y.M. and Jia, H., 2012. Unsupervised feature selection with feature clustering.
  10. Proc. 2012 IEEE/WIC/ACM Internat. Joint Conf. Web Intellig. Agent
  11. Technol. — Vol. 1. IEEE Comput. Soc.: 9-15.
  12. Dubois, M.K., Bohling, G.C. and Chakrabarti, S., 2007. Comparison of four approaches
  13. to a rock facies classification problem. Comput. Geosci., 33: 599-617.
  14. Dubois, M.K., Byrnes, A.P., Bohling, G.C. and Doveton, J.H., 2006. Multiscale geologic
  15. and petrophysical modelling of the giant Hugoton gas field (Permian), Kansas
  16. and Oklahoma, USA.
  17. Dubois, M.K., Byrnes, A.P., Bohling, G.C., Seals, S.C. and Doveton, J.H., 2003.
  18. Statistically-based lithofacies predictions for 3-D reservoir modeling: examples
  19. from the Panoma (Council Grove) Field, Hugoton Embayment, Southwest
  20. Kansas. Proc. AAPG Ann. Conv., 12: A44.
  21. Fakhari, M.G. and Hashemi, H., 2019. Fisher Discriminant Analysis (FDA), a supervised
  22. feature reduction method in seismic object detection. Geopersia, 9: 141-149.
  23. Friedman, J.H., 2001. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine: The
  24. Ann. Statist., 29: 1189-1232.
  25. Fukunaga, K., 1990. Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition. Academic Press,
  26. London.
  27. Guyon, I. and Elisseeff, A., 2003. An introduction to variable and feature selection. J.
  28. Mach. Learn. Res., 3: 1157-1182.
  29. Hall, B., 2016. Facies classification using machine learning. The Leading Edge, 35: 906-
  30. Hall, M. and Hall, B., 2017. Distributed collaborative prediction: results of the machine
  31. learning contest. The Leading Edge, 36: 267-269.
  32. Hall, B., 2016. https://github.com/seg/2016-ml-contest.
  33. Jolliffe, 1.T., 1986. Principal Component Analysis. Springer Verlag, New York.
  34. Liu, Y. and Zheng, Y.F., 2005. One-against-all multi-class SVM classification using
  35. reliability measures. Proc. 2005 IEEE Internat. Joint Conf. Neur. Netw., 2: 849-
  36. Pedregosa F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O. and
  37. Blondel, M., 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. J. Mach. Learn.
  38. Res., 12: 2825-2830.
  39. Vapnik, V., 1995. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
  40. Zhang, L. and Zhan, C., 2017. Machine learning in rock facies classification - an
  41. application of XGBoost. Proc. Internat. Geophys. Conf., Qingdao, China, 1371-
Share
Back to top
Journal of Seismic Exploration, Electronic ISSN: 0963-0651 Print ISSN: 0963-0651, Published by AccScience Publishing