AccScience Publishing / JSE / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/JSE026350163
Cite this article
6
Download
55
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Rock-physics-guided training sample expansion for machine learning–based reservoir fluid classification under limited well constraints

Shuai Sun1* ,  Yu Qi1 ,  Jingxue Shi1 ,  Jianxiang Feng1
Show Less
1 CNOOC Research Institute Ltd., Beijing , China
Received: 26 August 2026 | Revised: 9 October 2026 | Accepted: 10 October 2026 | Published online: 26 October 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

Machine learning has been widely applied to reservoir fluid prediction; however, its performance strongly depends on the quantity, representativeness, and class distribution of training samples. In practical exploration and development, labeled fluid samples are commonly derived from limited well-log data and are therefore insufficient to capture the range of fluid responses under complex reservoir conditions, restricting model generalization. To address this issue, this study proposes a rock-physics-guided training sample expansion method for reservoir fluid classification under limited well constraints. Elastic response samples under various reservoir conditions were generated using a rock-physics model, and distribution matching between model-generated samples and actual well-log data was performed in the feature space to improve their consistency with actual reservoir responses. A fully connected neural network was then used to establish the nonlinear relationship between fluid-sensitive attributes and reservoir fluid classes. Data-driven, model-driven, and model–data joint-driven training strategies were compared to evaluate the applicability and transferability of the expanded samples. The results show that the rock-physics-guided expanded samples achieved classification performance comparable to that of well-data-driven models and improved model stability under reservoir conditions broader than those represented by the limited training wells. Optimization of the training sample class distribution further improved the recognition of different fluid types. Applications to actual well-log and seismic data verified the effectiveness of the proposed method. These results indicate that machine learning–based fluid prediction under limited well constraints depends not only on network optimization but, more fundamentally, on constructing training samples with physical validity, distributional consistency, and adequate geological coverage.

Graphical abstract
Keywords
Rock-physics-guided sample expansion
Machine learning
Reservoir fluid classification
Model–data distribution matching
Seismic prediction
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
Shuai Sun, Yu Qi, Jingxue Shi, and Jianxiang Feng are employees of CNOOC Research Institute Ltd.; however, they were not involved in any activities that could constitute a conflict of interest in relation to this study.
References
  1. Castagna JP, Swan HW. Principles of AVO crossplotting. Leading Edge. 1997;16(4):337-342. doi: 10.1190/1.1437626
  2. Castagna JP, Swan HW, Foster DJ. Framework for AVO gradient and intercept interpretation. Geophysics. 1998;63(3):948-956. doi: 10.1190/1.1444406
  3. Aleardi M, Salusti A. Elastic prestack seismic inversion through discrete cosine transform reparameterization and convolutional neural networks. Geophysics. 2021;86(1):R129-R146. doi: 10.1190/geo2020-0313.1
  4. Tao X, Cao J, Zhao L, Li H, Ren Y, Jian P. Gas-bearing prediction in tight sandstone reservoirs based on multinetwork integration. Interpretation. 2024;12(2):T177-T185. doi: 10.1190/INT-2023-0091.1
  5. Tian L, Sun S, Qi Y, Shi J. Research and application of conditional generative adversarial network for predicting gas content in deep coal seams. Processes. 2025;13(10):3215. doi: 10.3390/pr13103215
  6. Hu L, Chen M, Jin H. Gas prediction in tight sandstone reservoirs based on a seismic dispersion attribute derived from frequency-dependent AVO inversion. Processes. 2025;13(7):2210. doi: 10.3390/pr13072210
  7. Zhong Z, Carr TR, Wu X, Wang G. Application of a convolutional neural network in permeability prediction: a case study in the Jacksonburg-Stringtown oil field, West Virginia, USA. Geophysics. 2019;84(6):B363-B373. doi: 10.1190/geo2018-0588.1
  8. Feng R, Hansen TM, Grana D, Balling N. An unsupervised deep-learning method for porosity estimation based on poststack seismic data. Geophysics. 2020;85(6):M97-M105. doi: 10.1190/geo2020-0121.1
  9. Ruiz R, Roubickova A, Reiser C, Banglawala N. Data mining and machine learning for porosity, saturation, and shear velocity prediction: recent experience and results. First Break. 2021;39(7):71-76. doi: 10.3997/1365-2397.fb2021055
  10. Wu X, Geng Z, Shi Y, Pham N, Fomel S, Caumon G. Building realistic structure models to train convolutional neural networks for seismic structural interpretation. Geophysics. 2020;85(4):WA27-WA39. doi: 10.1190/geo2019-0375.1
  11. Durall R, Tschannen V, Ettrich N, Keuper J. Generative models for the transfer of knowledge in seismic interpretation with deep learning. Leading Edge. 2021;40(7):534-542. doi: 10.1190/tle40070534.1
  12. Tian L, Sun S, Li Q, Shi J. Data-driven high-resolution gas-bearing prediction in tight sandstones: a case study from Block L, Eastern Ordos Basin. J Seism Explor 2025;34(3):13-24. doi: 10.36922/JSE025320053
  13. Halevy A, Norvig P, Pereira F. The unreasonable effectiveness of data. IEEE Intell Syst. 2009;24(2):8-12. doi: 10.1109/MIS.2009.36
  14. Fabien-Ouellet G, Sarkar R. Seismic velocity estimation: a deep recurrent neural-network approach. Geophysics. 2020;85(1):U21-U29. doi: 10.1190/GEO2018-0786.1
  15. Lin Y, Zhang Z. Learning or memorizing: a study of generalization issues on data-driven seismic full-waveform inversion. In: Proceedings of the SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2019. September 15-20, 2019; San Antonio, TX. Society of Exploration Geophysicists; 2019:2644-2648. doi: 10.1190/segam2019-3216702.1
  16. Chen W, Yang L, Zha B, Zhang M, Chen Y. Deep learning reservoir porosity prediction based on multilayer long short-term memory network. Geophysics. 2020;85(4):WA213-WA225. doi: 10.1190/geo2019-0261.1
  17. Du J, Liu J, Zhang G, Han L, Li N. Pre-stack seismic inversion using SeisInv-ResNet. In: Proceedings of the 89th Annual International Meeting. September 15-20, 2019; San Antonio, TX. SEG. 2019:2338-2342. doi: 10.1190/segam2019-3215750.1
  18. Zheng Y, Zhang Q, Yusifov A, Shi Y. Applications of supervised deep learning for seismic interpretation and inversion. Leading Edge. 2019;38(7):526-533. doi: 10.1190/tle38070526.1
  19. Gao Z, Li C, Zhang B, et al. Building large-scale density model via a deep-learning-based data-driven method. Geophysics. 2021;86(1):M1-M15. doi: 10.1190/geo2019-0332.1
  20. Downton JE, Collet O, Hampson DP, Colwell T. Theory-guided data science-based reservoir prediction of a North Sea oil field. Leading Edge. 2020;39(10):742-750. doi: 10.1190/tle39100742.1
  21. Karpatne A, Atluri G, Faghmous JH, et al. Theory-guided data science: a new paradigm for scientific discovery from data. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng. 2017;29(10):2318-2331. doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2017.2720168
  22. Shen C, Appling AP, Gentine P, et al. Differentiable modelling to unify machine learning and physical models for geosciences. Nat Rev Earth Environ. 2023;4(8):552-567. doi: 10.1038/s43017-023-00450-9
  23. Schuster GT, Chen Y, Feng S. Review of physics-informed machine-learning inversion of geophysical data. Geophysics. 2024;89(6):T337-T356. doi: 10.1190/geo2023-0615.1
  24. Das V, Mukerji T. Petrophysical properties prediction from prestack seismic data using convolutional neural networks. Geophysics. 2020;85(5):N41-N55. doi: 10.1190/geo2019-0650.1
  25. Das V, Pollack A, Wollner U, Mukerji T. Convolutional neural network for seismic impedance inversion. Geophysics. 2019;84(6):R869-R880. doi: 10.1190/geo2018-0838.1
  26. Avseth P, Mukerji T, Mavko G. Quantitative Seismic Interpretation: Applying Rock Physics Tools to Reduce Interpretation Risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2005. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511600074
  27. LeCun Y, Boser B, Denker JS, et al. Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition. Neural Comput. 1989;1(4):541-551. doi: 10.1162/neco.1989.1.4.541
  28. Nair V, Hinton GE. Rectified linear units improve restricted Boltzmann machines. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine Learning. June 21-24, 2010; Haifa, Israel. Omni press; 2010:807-814.
  29. Srivastava N, Hinton G, Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Salakhutdinov R. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. J Mach Learn Res. 2014;15(1):1929-1958.
  30. Kingma DP, Ba J. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. arXiv. Preprint Posted online 2014. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980
  31. Rasht-Behesht M, Huber C, Shukla K, Karniadakis GE. Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for wave propagation and full waveform inversions. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. 2022;127(5):e2021JB023120. doi: 10.1029/2021JB023120
Share
Back to top
Journal of Seismic Exploration, Print ISSN: 0963-0651, Published by AccScience Publishing