SPE 126094

Prediction of Rock Mechanical Parameters for Hydrocarbon Reservoirs Using

Different Artificial Intelligence Techniques
A. Abdulraheem, KFUPM, M. Ahmed and A. Vantala, Schlumberger, and T. Parvez, KFUPM

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in AlKhobar, Saudi Arabia, 09–11 May 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Rock mechanical parameters of reservoir rocks play an extremely important role in solving problems related to almost all
operations in oil or gas production. A continuous profile of these parameters along the depth is essential to analyze these
problems which include wellbore stability, sand production, fracturing, reservoir compaction, and surface subsidence. The
mechanical parameters can be divided into three main groups, viz., elastic parameters, strength parameters, and in-situ
stresses. Even the profile of in-situ stresses with depth is estimated using logs with elastic parameters as an essential input.
The focus of this work is on the prediction of elastic parameters and their variation with the depth of a given reservoir.
For an isotropic medium, there are two independent elastic parameters, viz., Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio.
Generally, logging data consisting of density, compressional and shear wave velocities are used to estimate these parameters.
However, these data provide dynamic elastic properties which are different from static values, especially in case of Young’s
modulus.
To get continuous rock samples throughout the depth of the reservoir and conduct triaxial tests to determine the static values
of these parameters is extremely expensive. Consequently, static values of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio obtained
from laboratory testing on rock samples acquired from selected intervals are used to calibrate the dynamic data obtained from
logs. However, since the rock layers vary in their properties with depth, a realistic estimation of static elastic values of the
rock is still a challenge. The problem is more prominent in limestone rocks compared to sandstone rocks. Further, shear
velocity data is not always available from well logs, making the problem more difficult.
An extensive experimental program was carried out first to obtain the static values of elastic parameters of reservoir rock
samples at reservoir conditions of high pressure. Log data consisting of different variables such as density, velocity, and
porosity from the same wells were also obtained.
Three artificial intelligence methods viz. Neural Network, Fuzzy Logic and Functional Network, were used to obtain a
continuous profile of static elastic parameters along the depth. The results obtained from these approaches were compared
using log inputs. The strengths of each of these approaches are also discussed.

Introduction
Rock elastic properties such as Poisson ratio, Young's modulus and bulk modulus play an important role in various stages of
upstream operations such as drilling, hydraulic fracturing, production, etc. Recent developments in seismic technology for
reservoir suggest that rock properties are potentially related to porosity and fluid saturation.
Usually rock mechanical properties are determined in the laboratory by plugging the cores obtained from the wells and
testing the plugs under reservoir conditions. This is the most reliable conventional method for obtaining the rock properties,
but it does have some shortcomings in terms of cost, skilled manpower requirements and handling of core plugs. A
continuous profile of the properties along the depth of the reservoir is therefore generated by calibrating the dynamic elastic
properties calculated from the log data with the static elastic properties obtained in the laboratory for selected depth points.
The calibration process plays an extremely important role in generating a reliable profile of the parameters.
In the present era the conventional human expert’s reasoning process are getting replaced by artificial intelligence system
that can perform the same task more quickly and efficiently. These tools are more efficient for modeling the kind of
uncertainty associated with vagueness, imprecision, and/or a lack of information related to a particular problem. The most
common AI (artificial Intelligence) methods used in real life application includes Neural Networks, Fuzzy Logic, Functional
2 SPE 126094

Networks, and Support Vector Machine.

This paper discusses about estimating the rock mechanical properties using open hole log data by means of Artificial
Intelligence techniques. Calibration models using these techniques are developed and their performance is evaluated based on
the ability to predict the desired rock parameters, i.e., Young’s modulus and Poisons ratio, along the depth of a given
reservoir.

Literature review
The only tool that responds to the elastic properties of the formation is the sonic logging. The sonic tool measures the
characteristic propagation speed of the P- and S-waves. In an isotropic medium, only the two elastic constants, the shear
modulus G and Poisson’s ratio ν are independent. They are related to the velocity of propagation of a P-wave Vp, and that of
the S-wave Vs, by
G = ρb vs2, and ν = (2 vs2 – vp2)/(2 vs2 – 2 vp2) (1)
Young’s modulus E is related to the two constants by
E = 2G(1+ν) (2)
There is often considerable disagreement between the static moduli obtained from conventional ‘static’ tests and the dynamic
moduli obtained from wave velocities and density of the rock. Dynamic moduli are invariably higher than static moduli
[Siggins, 1993]. The ratio of dynamic to static moduli ranges from approximately 1.5 to 3.0. Several mechanisms are
responsible for these discrepancies, such as: (i) The Strain Magnitude Effect, Hilbert et al. (1994), and Plona and Cook
(1995); (ii) The Frequency Effect, Suarez-Rivera et al. (1997). The more competent the rock, the less the discrepancy is.
The industry has relied on the simple regression technique to calibrate sonic log derived mechanical properties with static
measurements. In such methods, as discussed by Ahmed et al., (1991) and Gattens et al., (1990), a transfer function is
obtained between the static and dynamic mechanical properties with cross plotting and curve fitting procedures. Raaen et al.
(1996), proposed the FORMEL (FORmation MEchanical Logging) model for strength profiling of weak rocks. Other
approaches along similar similar lines have been reported in the literature.
Very few studies have been conducted to predict rock mechanical properties using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques.
This is partly because of the fact that AI based approach requires a significant amount of data for training the system.
Murillo et al (2001) presented a neural network based approach to estimate the rock mechanical properties especially for
wells with limited log suites. Nikravesh (1998) employed fuzzy logic to to group well log data into important datasets and
discover expected and unexpected structural relationships between datasets. Using this approach he predicted rock properties
along the depth of the reservoir. This paper explores the possibility of using three different artificial intelligence methods to
predict rock mechanical properties and their variation with the depth of a given reservoir.

Experimental Program and Log data

An extensive experimental program was carried out first to obtain static values of elastic parameters of reservoir rock
samples at confining pressures that correspond to the reservoir conditions. A standard triaxial testing machine was used to
carry out these tests. Log data consisting of different variables such as density, velocity, and porosity from the same wells
were also obtained.

Development of Models
In order to generate models using Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques for predicting the static elastic parameters of the
rock, dataset comprising of core and wire data were used. The wire line log parameters obtained for a selelcted well and the
corresponding mechanical properties were determined in the laboratory on 77 core plugs at selected depth points of the same
well. The input dataset for the model consisted of compression wave travel time (DT) and bulk density (RHOB) obtained
from wire line logs and the target dataset consisted of Youngs Modulus (E) and Poissons Ratio (PR or ν) obtained in the
laboratory. Statistical Information about the modeling variables and their correlation coefficients are shown from Table 1
and Table 2 respectively.
The dataset of was divided into two separate sets namely ‘training’ and ‘testing’. The data points were distributed among
training and testing sets using “uniform data selection (UDS)” technique that selects the data in a fixed and uniform manner
to help in comparing the outputs from different approaches. For a given well, 70% of the dataset was used for training while
the remaining 30% was used for testing.

The criteria used for evaluating the predicted values include:

* The agreement between the predicted and the actual core parameters;
* The number of outliers, i.e., predicted values that lie far away from the actual data; and
* The RMSE (Root mean square of error) between the actual and the predicted value.
SPE 126094 3

A predicted point is considered an outlier if its value is out of range (maximum or minimum) of the actual data. Other error
values were also evaluated but the RMSE was considered to be enough for comparison. The outliers were dealt with by
replacing them with the corresponding maximum or minimum core values.
Three different AI models were developed; a brief description about these models is given below:

Neural Networks:

Neural networks are composed of simple elements operating in parallel and the network function is determined largely by the
connections between these elements. A neural network can be trained to perform a particular function by adjusting the values
of the connections (weights) between elements. Commonly neural networks are adjusted, or trained, so that a particular input
leads to a specific target output. Typically many such input/target pairs are needed to train a network [mathworks, 2008].
A three-layer feed-forward neural network model is used for predicting rock mechanical properties using wireline log data as
input. A common activation function of sigmoidal type was used for both the input and the hidden layers. For the output
layer, a simple linear function was employed. The training of the data was carried out using Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm
(‘trainlm’). For a particular set of input vectors, the network is trained with different sets of initial random weights and
biases using various learning algorithms. The Neural Network Model (NNM) designed for prediction of ‘E’ and ‘PR’ was
tested for different learning functions available and only two that performed better during the training and testing for our
datasets were selected. After training the network, the root mean square error (RMSE) and correlation coefficient (CC) were
computed from the target and the network output. The network was then optimized using suitable weights and biases
obtained after a considerable number of iterations, for which these learning functions provided the best prediction. Mean
squared error was used to check the performance of the network. For predicting the Youngs Modulus the learning functions
selected were ‘learncon’ and ‘learnwh.’ In case of Poisson’s ratio ‘ learnis’ and ‘learnlv2’ were found to perform better. A
brief description of these learning algorithms is given in Table 3 [mathworks, 2008].

Fuzzy Logic Model or FL-Model

Fuzzy logic technique is simply an application of recognized statistical techniques and is an extension of conventional
Boolean logic (zeros and ones) developed to handle the concept of partial truth, i.e., values between complete truth (ones) and
totally false (zeros) [mathworks, 2008].

The performance of the Fuzzy logic (FL) modeling was checked using Subtractive Clustering (SC) and Grid Partitioning
techniques. For Clustering a radius of 0.2 was selected. For grid partitioning, membership function of the type gaussmf was
used after checking the model for over-fitting. A Sugeno-type Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) was used with the subtractive
clustering method to generate clusters and to identify natural groupings of data. The fuzzy rules generated using this FIS
were then optimized by applying Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS). Backpropagation algorithm is used in
order to allow the fuzzy systems learn from the modeling data.

Functional network model or FN-model:

Functional Networks allow for a more general class of units than the sigmoidal units used in a typical neural network. The
initial functional network can be generated directly from the problem under consideration. The neuron functions subsume the
effect of weights and therefore there is no need to include weights associated with links. Functional networks allow
converging neuron outputs, forcing them to be coincident. This leads to functional equations or systems of functional
equations, which require some compatibility conditions on the neuron functions. Functional networks have the possibility of
dealing with functional constraints that are determined by the functional properties of the network model.
During current investigation two types of learning techniques ‘Functional Network Forward Selection Method (FNFSM)’ and
‘Functional Network Forward Backward Method (FNFBM)’ has been implemented

Model Implementation and Discussion of Results

The results obtained during the training and the testing of the models using different AI techniques for predicting ‘E’ and
‘PR” are shown in Figures 3 through 8 where as the model performance parameters are listed in Table 4 through 9 for various
cases.
4 SPE 126094

Prediction of Young’s Modulus (E):

Performance of Neural Network Model (NNM): The performance of the NNM using the combination of travel time (DT)
and bulk density (RHOB) as inputs with two different techniques for predicting E is shown in Table 4. The corresponding
plots for actual and the predicted values of ‘E’ are shown in Figure 3 for both training and testing using two different learning
algorithms.

During the training, a lowest RMSE value of 10.12 and highest CC of 0.85 were obtained using ‘conscience bias’ learning
algorithm. The corresponding values are 13.18 and 0.73 using ‘Widrow-Hoff weight and bias’ learning algorithm. The
situation was reversed during the testing; a lowest RMSE value of 12.73 (and highest CC of 0.73) was shown by ‘Widrow-
Hoff weight and bias’ learning algorithm and highest RMSE value of 18.18 (and highest CC of 0.44) was shown by
‘conscience bias’ learning algorithm.

Performance of Fuzzy Logic Model (FLM): The performance of the FLM using the combination of DT and RHOB as
inputs with two different techniques(SC and GP) for predicting E is shown in Table 5. The corresponding plots for actual
and the predicted values of ‘E’ is shown in Figure 4 for both training and testing.

An RMSE value of 8.1 and CC of 0.89 were obtained using SC technique during training. The corresponding values are 9.91
and 0.83 for GP technique. Even for the testing, SC showed better performance (RMSE: 16.88, CC: 0.5) compared to the GP
(RMSE: 16.64, CC: 0.48). The predicted curve seems to pass through most of the target data points with the developed
model.

Performance of Functional Network Model (FNM): The performance of the FNM using forward selection method with the
combination of DT and RHOB as inputs is shown in Table 6 for prediction of E. The corresponding plots for actual and the
predicted values of ‘E’ are shown in Figure 5 both training and testing.

Prediction of Poisson’s Ratio (PR or ν):

Since there is a low correlation coefficient between the PR (core) and the log inputs, the models are not expected to perform
better than that for the case of Young’s modulus.

Performance of Neural Network Model (NNM): Using both ‘Instar weight (learnis)’ and ‘Learning Vector Quantization-2
(learnlvq2)’ algorithms RMSE value of 0.05 and CC of 0.86 were obtained during the training of NNM. Table 7 lists the
RMSE and CC values of NNM with these learning algorithms. The corresponding plots for actual and the predicted values
of Young’s modulus are shown in Figure 6 both training and testing.

Performance of Fuzzy Logic Model (FLM): The performance of the FLM using the combination of DT and RHOB as
inputs with two different techniques for predicting PR using two different approaches, Subtractive Clustering (SC) and Grid
Patritioning (GP), is shown in Table 8. The corresponding plots for actual and the predicted values of ‘PR’ are shown in
Figure 7 for both training and testing using SC and GP respectively.

Performance of Functional Network Model (FNM): The performance of the FNM using forward selection method with the
combination of DT and RHOB as inputs is shown in Table 9 for prediction of Poisson’s ratio. The corresponding plots for
actual and the predicted values of Poisson’s ratio are shown in Figure 8 for both training and testing.

Concluding Remarks
Three artificial intelligence methods viz. Neural Network, Fuzzy Logic and Functional Network, were used to obtain a
continuous profile of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio and their variation along the depth of given formations. Density
and compressional velocity data were used as input to train the networks. Of the three approaches, Fuzzy logic with
subtractive clustering approach has performed better than the other two approaches for the given data. Additional
information especially the shear wave velocity data is expected to enhance the results further.

Artificial intelligence methods can be successfully employed in cases where the physical relationships do not exist and where
there is extensive variation in the properties. To address the discrepancy in the prediction models and to exploit the physical
relationships between log data and elastic parameters, a combination of soft computing and hard computing will be employed
in future.
SPE 126094 5

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals for the support it provided during this
study. They would like to thank Dr. E. Sebakhy also for his help in this work.

References
Ahmed, U., M.E. Markley, and S.F. Crary (1991). Enhanced In Situ Stress Profiling with Microfracture, Core and Sonic
Logging Data. SPE 19004, SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1991, pp. 243-251.
Gattens III, J.M., C.W. III Harrison, D.E. Lancaster, and F.K. Guidry (1990). In-Situ Stress Tests and Acoustic Logs
Determine Mechanical Properties and Stress Profiles in the Devonian Shales. SPE Formation Evaluation, Sept. 1990,
pp. 248-254.
Hilbert, L.B., T.K. Kwong, N.G.W. Cook, KT Nihei and L.R. Myer. (1994). Effects of strain amplitude on the static and
dynamic non-linear deformation of Berea sandstone. Proceedings of the 1st North American Rock Mechanics
Symposium, pp. 497-502.
Mathworks (2008). http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/toolbox/nnet/
Murillo, A., J. Neuman, and R. Samuel (2001). Estimation of Rock Dynamic Elastic Property Profiles through a Combination
of Soft Computing, Acoustic Velocity Modeling, and Laboratory Dynamic Test on Core Samples. SPE Asia Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 17-19 April 2001, Jakarta, Indonesia
Nikravesh, M. (1998). Neural Network Knowledge-Based Modeling of Rock Properties Based on Well Log Databases. SPE
Western Regional Meeting, 10-13 May 1998, Bakersfield, California
Plona T.J. and J.M. Cook (1995). Effects of stress cycles on static and dynamic Young's moduli in Castlegate sandstone.
Rock Mechanics. Daamen & Schultz (editors). Balkema. Rotterdam
Raaen, A.M., K.A. Hovem, H. Joranson, and E. Fjaer (1996). FORMEL: A step forward in strength logging. SPE paper no.
36533 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO.
Siggins, A.F. (1993). Dynamic Elastic Tests for Rock Engineering. Comprehensive Rock Engineering (Eds: J.A. Hudson,
E.T. Brown, C. Fairhurst, and E. Hoek). Pergamon Press. UK.
Suarez-Rivera, R.S. Nakagawa, L. and R. Myer (1997). Determination of Rock Elastic Properties from Acoustic
Measurements of Rock Fragments. Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. Vol. 34; No.3-4. Paper No.304.
6 SPE 126094

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 1. Cumulative frequency distribution of (a) Young’s modulus; (b): Poisson’s ratio; (c): DT; (d): RHOB.

80 80

70 70

60 60
CC=-0.627 CC= 0.611
50 50
E

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3
DT RHOB

0.5 0.5

0.45 0.45

0.4 0.4
CC=-0.285 CC= 0.148
0.35 0.35
PR

PR

0.3 0.3

0.25 0.25

0.2 0.2

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3

DT RHOB

Figure 2. Cross Plots of Output Parameters (E and PR) with DT and RHOB.
SPE 126094 7

E-Core E-NN(learnp) E-NN(learnwh) E-Core E-NN(learnp) E-NN(learnwh)

10600 10600

10650 10650

10700 10700

10750 10750

10800 10800
Depth(ft)

Depth(ft)
10850 10850

10900 10900

10950 10950

11000 11000

11050 11050
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
E(GPa) E(GPa)

Figure 3. Variation of predicted and actual Young’s modulus with depth during training and testing using NNM (with
Learning functions ‘learnp’ and ‘learwh’).

E-Core E-FL
E-Core E-FL

10600
10600

10650
10650

10700 10700

10750 10750

10800 10800
Depth(ft)

Depth(ft)

10850 10850

10900 10900

10950 10950

11000 11000

11050 11050
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
E(GPa) E(GPa)

Figure 4. Variation of predicted and actual ‘Young’s modulus with depth during training and testing using FLM
(Subtractice Clustering).
8 SPE 126094

E-Core E-FNFSM E-Core E-FNFSM

10600 10600

10650 10650

10700 10700

10750 10750

10800 10800
Depth(ft)

Depth(ft)
10850 10850

10900 10900

10950 10950

11000 11000

11050 11050
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 E(GPa) 60 80 100
E(GPa)

Figure 5. Variation of predicted and actual Young’s modulus with depth during training and testing using FNFSM.

PR-Core PR-NN(learnp) PR-NN(learnwh) PR-Core PR-NN(learnp) PR-NN(learnwh)

10600 10600

10650 10650

10700 10700

10750 10750

10800 10800
Depth(ft)
Depth(ft)

10850 10850

10900 10900

10950 10950

11000 11000

11050 11050
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
PR PR

Figure 6. Variation of predicted and actual Poisson’s ratio with depth during training and testing using NNM (with
Learning functions ‘learnp’ and ‘learnwh’)
SPE 126094 9

PR-Core PR-FL PR-Core PR-FL

10600 10620

10640
10650

10660
10700

10680
10750

10700
10800

Depth(ft)
Depth(ft)

10720

10850
10740

10900
10760

10950
10780

11000 10800

11050 10820
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
PR PR

Figure 7. Variation of predicted and actual Poisson’s ratio with depth during training and testing using FLM
(Subtractice Clustering)..

PR-Core PR-FNFSM PR-Core PR-FNFSM

10620 10600

10640
10650

10660
10700

10680
10750

10700
10800
Depth(ft)

Depth(ft)

10720

10850
10740

10900
10760

10950
10780

10800 11000

10820 11050
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
PR PR

Figure 8. Variation of predicted and actual Poisson’s ratio with depth during training and testing using FNFSM.
10 SPE 126094

Table 1. Statistical Information of the Input Data File Variables.

Variables Attribute Min. Max. Mean Standard Deviation No. of Data Points

E (Gpa)-Core Output 9.93 85.75 38.045 18.811 77

PR-Core Output 0.16 0.51 0.331 0.094 77
DT Input 45.07 91.51 57.851 11.517 77
RHOB Input 2.26 3.01 2.698 0.146 77

Table 2. Correlation Coefficient of ‘E’ and ‘PR’ with Log Input.

Correlation Coefficient (CC)

Rock Properties
DT RHOB
Young’s Modulus (E) -0.627 0.611
Poisson’s Ratio (PR) -0.285 0.148

Table 3. Description of different learning functions used to build the NN model.

Learning Function Description

Conscience bias Calculates the bias change db for a given neuron by first updating each neuron's
learning function. conscience, i.e., the running average of its output. The conscience is then used to
'learncon' compute a bias for the neuron that is greatest for smaller conscience values.

Widrow-Hoff Calculates the weight change dW for a given neuron from the neuron's input and error,
weight and bias and the weight (or bias) learning rate LR, according to the Widrow-Hoff learning rule.
learning rule.
'learnwh'
Instar weight Calculates the weight change dW for a given neuron from the neuron's input P, output
learning function. A, and learning rate LR according to the instar learning rule.
'learnis'
LVQ2 weight Implements Learning Vector Quantization-2
learning function.
'learnlv2'
SPE 126094 11

Table 4. Performance of NNM in predicting Youngs Modulus.

Training Testing
Learning
Functions Positive Negative Positive Negative
RMSE CC RMSE CC
outliers outliers outliers outliers
learncon (L1) 0 0 10.12 0.85 0 0 18.18 0.44
learnwh (L14) 0 0 13.18 0.73 0 0 12.73 0.73

Table 5. Performance of NNM in predicting Poissons Ratio.

Training Testing
Learning
Functions Positive Negative Positive Negative
RMSE CC RMSE CC
outliers outliers outliers outliers
learnis (L6) 1 1 0.05 0.86 4 0 0.10 0.40
learnlv2 (L9) 0 0 0.05 0.86 2 0 0.10 0.31

Table 6. Performance of FLM in predicting Youngs Modulus.

Training Testing
Learning
Functions Positive Negative Positive Negative
RMSE CC RMSE CC
outliers outliers outliers outliers
ANFIS-SC 0 0 8.1 0.89 1 0 16.88 0.52
ANFIS-GP 0 0 9.91 0.83 0 0 16.64 0.48

Table 7. Performance of FLM model in predicting Poissons Ratio.

Training Testing
Learning
Functions Positive Negative Positive Negative
RMSE CC RMSE CC
outliers outliers outliers outliers
-
ANFIS-SC 0 0 0.037 0.91 1 1 0.33
0.2
ANFIS-GP 0 0 0.06 0.71 0 0 0.09 0.3

Table 8. Performance of FNFSM in predicting Youngs Modulus.

Training Testing
Learning
Functions Positive Negative Positive Negative
RMSE CC RMSE CC
outliers outliers outliers outliers
ANFIS-SC 0 0 11.48 0.77 1 0 16.88 0.52

Table 9. Performance of FNFSM model in predicting Poissons Ratio.

Training Testing
Learning
Functions Positive Negative Positive Negative
RMSE CC RMSE CC
outliers outliers outliers outliers
ANFIS-SC 0 0 0.09 0.10 0 0 0.09 0.34