Natural Resources Research (Ó 2021)

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-021-09852-2

Original Paper

Predicting Formation Pore-Pressure from Well-Log Data

with Hybrid Machine-Learning Optimization Algorithms

Mohammad Farsi,1 Nima Mohamadian,2 Hamzeh Ghorbani ,3 David A. Wood ,4,8

Shadfar Davoodi ,5 Jamshid Moghadasi,6 and Mehdi Ahmadi Alvar7

Received 23 September 2020; accepted 28 February 2021

Accurate prediction of pore-pressures in the subsurface is paramount for successful planning and
drilling of oil and gas wellbores. It saves cost and time and helps to avoid drilling problems. As it is
expensive and time-consuming to measure pore-pressure directly in wellbores, it is useful to be able to
predict it from various petrophysical input variables on a supervised learning basis calibrated to a
benchmark wellbore. This study developed and compared three-hybrid machine-learning opti-
mization models applied to a diverse suite of 9 petrophysical input variables to predict pore-pressure
across a 273-m-thick, predominately carbonate, reservoir sequence in the giant Marun oil field (Iran)
using 1972 data records. The analysis identified that the multilayer extreme learning machine model
hybridized with a particle swarm optimization (MELM–PSO) applied to seven input variables by
feature selection provided the most accurate pore-pressure predictions for the full dataset
(RMSE = 11.551 psi (1 psi = 6.8947590868 kPa) for well MN#281). The Savitzky–Golay (SG) filter
was applied to pre-process the data, and the properties were filter-ranked using the wrapping method.
The MELM–PSO model outperformed the pore-pressure prediction accuracy achieved by com-
monly used empirical formulas involving sonic or resistivity log data or calculated pore compress-
ibility. To further verify and generalize the applicability of the MELM–PSO model, it was applied to
two other Marun oil field wells (MN#297 and MN#378) achieving RMSE prediction accuracy of
10.031 psi and 10.150 psi, respectively. These results confirmed that the trained model can be reliably
applied to multiple locations across the Marun oil field for predicting pore-pressure.
KEY WORDS: Pore-pressure prediction, Petrophysical well-log data, Hybrid machine-learning opti-
mization models, Feature selection, Empirical model comparisons, Multilayer extreme learning
machine, Particle swarm optimization.

1
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Petroleum
and Chemical Engineering, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2
Young Researchers and Elite Club, Omidiyeh Branch, Islamic
Azad University, Omidiyeh, Iran.
3
Young Researchers and Elite Club, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Ahvaz, Iran.
4
DWA Energy Limited, Lincoln LN5 9JP, UK.
5
School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Tomsk Polytechnic
University, Lenin Avenue, Tomsk, Russia.
6
Petroleum Engineering Department, Petroleum Industry
University, Ahvaz, Iran.
7
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Computer Engineering,
Shahid Chamran University, Ahwaz, Iran.
8
To whom correspondence should be addressed; e-mail:
dw@dwasolutions.com

Ó 2021 International Association for Mathematical Geosciences

 M. Farsi et al.

network (RBFNN) model to predict soil pore-water

INTRODUCTION
pressure responses to rainfall. Their results showed
that RBFNN models can be used to map meaning-
Understanding the detailed variations in sub-
fully the nonlinear and complex behavior of pores in
surface formation pore-pressure is a key factor in
subsurface formations. Keshavarzi and Jahanbakhsh
designing accurate drilling plans for the implemen-
(2013) developed a back-propagation artificial neu-
tation and completion of oil and gas wellbores. The
ral network (BPANN) to predict the pore-pressure
formulation of drilling plans, subsurface geo-me-
gradient in the Asmari (Oligo–Miocene) and
chanical models, enhanced oil and gas recovery
Bangestan (Cretaceous) reservoirs of a large oil field
programs and reservoir development strategies all
in southwestern Iran. Results demonstrated that
depend largely on accurate knowledge of formation
their BPANN model predicted the pore-pressure
pore-pressures. Such knowledge substantially im-
gradient of that field with higher accuracy than the
proves the chances of conducting successful and
empirical Eaton-method models.
efficient drilling operations avoiding hazards and
Ahmed et al. (2019) applied an ANN model
minimizing drilling time and costs.
using borehole variables and well-logs recorded
Stratified layers of sedimentary rocks deposited
while drilling to predict pore-pressure. The well they
over geological time scales of millions of years are
studied was drilled onshore with data from sections
compressed progressively over time as they become
drilled at two different hole sizes: 83/8 and 57/8 in-
buried. Gradually, the build-up of the sedimentary
ches.1 The drilling and well-log variables they eval-
overburden pressurizes the pore fluids of the buried
uated included weight on bit (WOB), rotational
formations. The presence of compacted and non-
speed (RPM), rate of penetration (ROP), mud
permeable layers capping porous zones constrains
weight (MW), bulk density (RHOB), porosity (u)
the pressurized formation fluids from escaping from
and compressional sonic travel time (DT). Their
those potential reservoirs. Hydrostatic pressure
results identified that feature selections among these
gradually increases in sedimentary formations with
variables are important in determining the accuracy
burial depth governed by a functional relationship
of pore-pressure prediction. Applying an optimized
with overburden pressure (Polito et al. 2008; Shi and
ANN model with careful feature selection, they
Wang 1986). However, over-pressured systems can
were able to estimate pore-pressure for that well
evolve in tightly sealed porous zones. A key chal-
with high accuracy (correlation coefficient = 0.998;
lenge in oil and gas drilling is anticipating and mit-
absolute percentage error = 0.17%). Ahmed, Elk-
igating pore-pressure variations in the sections being
atatny, et al. (2019), Ahmed, Mahmoud, et al. (2019)
drilled, above and through, the potential reservoir
applied a support vector machine (SVM) algorithm
zones (Ghorbani et al. 2019; Mohamadian et al.
to predict pore-pressure from petrophysical data
2019, 2021; Rashidi et al. 2020, 2021), some of which
collected from a lateral branch of an offshore well-
may not be in hydrostatic communication with for-
bore. The wellbore penetrated a wide range of
mations above or below them Liu (2017).
lithologies including five interbedded shales and
The availability of subsurface pore-pressure
sandstones overlain by a carbonate layer. They
maps, identifying anomalous-pressure regions, both
predict pore-pressure and fracture pressure for that
over-pressured and under-pressured, substantially
well using an SVM model achieving a coefficient of
reduces drilling risks and surprises. It facilitates
determination (R2) of about 0.995.
drilling plans and pressure management that are
Hutomo et al. (2019) and Andrian et al. (2020)
more reliable during drilling operations (Rehm et al.
predicted pore-pressure values and mapped their
2013). Hazards, such as well blowouts, pressure
distribution using 3D seismic data and a neural
kicks, circulation losses and fluid influx, may all be
network method, achieving prediction accuracies of
more easily avoided armed with prior knowledge of
up to 90%. Yu et al. (2020) developed four machine-
the subsurface pressure regimes (Osborne and
learning methods for pore-pressure prediction
Swarbrick 1997).
involving a multilayer perceptron neural network,
In recent years, there have been several at-
support vector machine, random forest and gradient
tempts to use machine-learning algorithms to out-
boosting methods applied to well-log data from a set
perform empirical equations in the prediction of
of offshore exploration wells. Their result demon-
subsurface pore-pressure profiles. Mustafa et al.
(2012) developed a radial basis function neural 1
1 inch = 0.0254 m.
Predicting Formation Pore-Pressure from Well-Log Data
strated that their random forest model outper-
formed the other algorithms in terms of goodness-
of-fit, generalizability and prediction accuracy.
In this paper, three-hybrid algorithms, namely
MLP–PSO, LSSVM–PSO and MELM–PSO, were
developed and compared for predicting pore-pres-
sure from well-log data. The dataset evaluated in-
cludes the available information comprising
effective stress (deff), pore compressibility (Cp),
corrected gamma ray (CGR; adjusted for uranium
concentrations), uncorrected spectral gamma ray
(SGR), potassium (POTA) from the SGR tool,
thorium (THOR) from the SGR tool, uranium
(URAN) from the SGR tool, the photoelectric
absorption factor (PEF), bulk formation density
(RHOB), compressional sonic transit time (DT),
neutron porosity (NPHI) and deep resistivity (ILD).
The best-performing algorithm was identified for
accurate prediction of pore-pressure using optimized
feature selection from the well-log curves.
PORE-PRESSURE MODELS
Calculating subsurface pore-pressure using Ea-
ton’s method (Eaton 1975) by solving the equations
of Terzaghi et al. (1996) as a function of overburden
pressure and matrix stress is widely used. Equa-
tion (1) expresses the fundamental relationship be-
tween overburden pressure and pore-pressure, thus:
S ¼ r þ PP ; ð1Þ
where S is overburden pressure; r is matrix stress;
and PP is pore-pressure. As a benchmark, a ‘‘nor-
mal’’ compaction curve is established using Eq. 1 for
fine-grained sediments for which overburden stress
and pore-pressure increase with burial depth as
‘‘normal’’ compaction progresses. Such compaction
curves vs. depth provide simplistic effective stress
and/or pore-pressure relationship that tend to vary
among sedimentary basins due to distinctive
lithologies and prevailing subsurface stress regimes
(Swarbrick 2001). It is useful to make a comparison
between the ‘‘observed’’ and ‘‘normal’’ compaction
profiles to identify over-pressured and under-pres-
sured zones (Swarbrick 2001). Eaton’s method pro-
vides well-used empirical equations for deriving
pore-pressure from basic well-log data. For example,
Eqs. 2 and 3 express EatonÕs formulas for calculating
pore-pressure from resistivity and sonic well-logs,
respectively.
 
  Rlog n
Pp ¼ dv  dv  Phyd ; ð2Þ
Rn
where Pp is pore-pressure, dv is total vertical stress,
Phyd is normal or hydrostatic pressure, Rlog is the
observed resistivity log value, Rn is the resistivity log
associated with a normal pore-pressure profile, and,
n is an empirical constant, for which a value of 1.2 is
commonly used (Yoshida et al. 1996). EatonÕs (1975)
empirical formula for predicting pore-pressure from
sonic well-log transit time values is expressed as
(Yoshida et al. 1996):
 
  DT log n
Pp ¼ dv  dv  Phyd ; ð3Þ
DT n
where Pp is pore-pressure, dv is total vertical stress,
Phyd is normal or hydrostatic pressure, DTlog is the
sonic log transit time value, DTn is the sonic log
value when pore-pressure is normal, n is an empiri-
cal constant, for which a value of 3.0 is commonly
used.
In 1995, Bowers (1995) proposed a model for
determining pore-pressure based on effective stress,
the main purpose of which was to calculate effective
velocity stresses and use them to calculate pore-
pressure. That method considered compaction dise-
quilibrium and unloading due to fluid expansion as
the main mechanisms involved in generating over-
pressure. Azadpour et al. (2015) predicted pore-
pressure in an Iranian gas field based on three
empirical methods: Eaton (Eq. 2) (Eaton 1975),
Bowers (velocity-based model) (Bowers 1995) and
the compressibility (Atashbari and Tingay 2012)
methods. They found that the Eaton method, with
an n exponent of about 0.5, provided more accurate
predictions than the other methods. Consequently,
they developed a three-dimensional pore-pressure
prediction model for that field applying statistical
extrapolations. The estimated pore-pressure values
from that 3D model proved to be in good agreement
with pore-pressures measured directly by using a
wireline-based modular dynamic tester. Taking into
account compaction to address the challenge of
disequilibrium applies Eqs. (4) to (6) to resolve
unloading conditions.
V ¼ V 0 þ ArB ð4Þ
"  ðU1 Þ #B
r
V ¼ V 0 þ A rmax ð5Þ
rmax

 1
V max  1500 B
rmax ¼ ;
A In recent years, the number of features selected
where V is velocity, V0 is surface velocity (normally
1500 m/s), r is vertical effective stress, A and B are
obtained from calibrating regional offset velocity vs.
effective stress data, U is the unloading parameter,
and Vmax and rmax are velocity and effective stress,
respectively, at the onset of unloading;
Atashbari and Tingay (2012) calculated effec-
tive stress using well-log derived bulk density data
for two Iranian carbonate reservoirs. As pore-pres-
sure changes during compaction are, to a degree,
related to the changing magnitude of the pore vol-
ume, that volume is also a function of bulk density,
as it increases during compaction. As compaction
progresses, the pore space is reduced causing the
pore fluids to become compressed, thereby increas-
ing pore-pressure. Equation (7) expresses the rela-
tionship they evaluated between rock and pore
compressibility and pore-pressure, thus:
 c
ð1  £ÞCb reff :
Pp ¼ ; ð7Þ
ð1  £ÞCb  £Cp
where Pp is pore-pressure, ø is fractional porosity,
Cb is bulk compressibility in psi1, Cp is pore com-
pressibility in psi1, reff is vertical effective stress in
psi, and, is an empirical constant, ranging from 0.9
to 1.0. (Note: 1 psi = 6.8947590868 kPa).
METHODOLOGY
Work Flow
This study combined three machine-learning
models with an efficient optimization to predict
formation pore-pressure from petrophysical data
collected from wellbores drilled in the large Marun
oil and gas field in southwest Iran. It combined the
basic well-log data and some of the established pore-
pressure relationships with stress and compressibil-
ity to derive high-resolution predictions for forma-
tion pore-pressure prediction for the prolific oil-
bearing Asmari carbonate reservoir in that field. The
models were developed and evaluated in a novel
three-stage sequence summarized in Figure 1. The
approach identifies for the first time the usefulness
of gamma ray and PEF log data in accurately pre-
dicting subsurface pore-pressures.
M. Farsi et al.
Feature Selection and Ranking
ð6Þ
for a variety of machine-learning applications has
changed from less than 10 features to more than 100
variables in some applications. Eliminating irrele-
vant or less influential variables can be computa-
tionally efficient, develop simpler models and, in
some cases, improve dependent variable prediction
accuracy. This involves selecting from a set of all
available features (variables) a subset that provides
the best prediction estimates for variables of interest
(Jain and Zongker 1997). In many cases, such a
selection can be NP-hard and requires a large
number of iterations to estimate all possible com-
binations (Chandrashekar and Sahin 2014). For
example, if 20 features are available, then 2 N pos-
sible combinations (1,048,576) exist.
Feature selection can be achieved by several
methods, including: filtering, wrapping and embed-
ded methods. The filtering method offers the sim-
plest route to eliminating certain features. However,
care in applying this method is required, because not
every evaluated subset is optimal, and different
combinations of features can produce comparable
prediction accuracy. In addition, the use of an effi-
cient machine-learning algorithm is essential for this
purpose (John et al. 1994). On the other hand,
wrapping methods can often be more effective in
selecting features. This is because, by evaluating
multiple test solution spaces, they more effectively
take into account the architecture of the underlying
model. Unlike filtering methods, wrappers are also
able to detect attribute dependencies (Kohavi and
John 1997). Wrapping methods tend to use either
sequential selection of features or employ evolu-
tionary algorithms to test multiple feature combi-
nations. A binary genetic algorithm (GA) is
suitable for identifying ineffective variables for
potential feature removal.
In this research, feature selection was con-
ducted using a wrapping method that combines a
genetic algorithm with a multilayer perceptron
neural network (MLP–NN). Some subsets of
potential solutions were initially generated. Each of
such solution contained a different combination of
input variables that were evaluated in normalized
terms. Fitness scores for each combination of vari-
ables were expressed as a cost function acting as the
objective function for the optimization. The cost
function used in this study was root mean squared
error (RMSE) of the dependent variable. High-
Predicting Formation Pore-Pressure from Well-Log Data
Figure 1. Workflow sequence applied to evaluate hybrid machine-learning/optimization models to predict
accurately formation pore-pressure based on various petrophysical inputs.
performing solutions (those with the lowest RMSE
values) were identified by ranking and passed on to
the next optimization iteration. The GA applied
three modification processes (crossover, combina-
tion and mutation) to create a new subset of solu-
tions, including the best performers from the
previous iteration, for evaluation in the next itera-
tion (Wahab et al. 2015).
Repeat Formation Tester (RFT) Downhole Direct
Pressure Measurements
Wireline or measurement-while-drilling
(MWD) techniques can provide direct formation-
pressure measurements. Using two packers and a
probe, the repeat formation tester (RFT), and sim-
ilar tools, can sequentially record formation pres-
sures from multiple depths. At each depth to be
tested, the borehole interval is isolated and a con-
trolled flow of reservoir fluid is induced. The RFT
data, recorded in situ, provide valuable information
about the reservoir condition, such as temperature,
pressure, permeability. The fluid samples recovered
by the RFT can be analyzed subsequently to provide
compositional details of the reservoir fluids. How-
ever, deploying such tools to record multiple pres-
sure points in boreholes is time-consuming and
expensive and such data are not routinely collected
across the entire reservoir sequence in every well
drilled.
This study used the data recorded by the RFT
tool to provide a measured pressure vs. depth data
series from a single well. The objective was to use
hybrid optimization/machine-learning tools to pre-
dict that measured formation pore-pressure vs.

depth data from the available suite of well-logs. The
value of doing this is that reliable and verified ma-
chine-learning solutions can be applied to predict
pore-pressure in adjacent wells (already drilled and
yet-to-be drilled) for which RFT data are not
available. This would avoid the cost and time asso-
ciated with taking direct in situ pressure measure-
ments in the reservoir sections of each well drilled.
Machine-Learning Algorithms Evaluated
Optimization and machine-learning can help to
resolve issues in many areas of the oil and gas
industry, including reservoirs (Ghorbani et al.
2017a), formation damage (Mohammadian and
Ghorbani 2015), wellbore stability (Darvishpour
et al. 2019), rheology and filtration (Mohamadian
et al. 2018), production (Ghorbani and Moghadasi
2014; Ghorbani et al. 2014 2017b) and drilling fluid
(Mohamadian et al. 2019). Machine-learning algo-
rithms are now the mathematical tools of choice to
provide accurate and reliable predictions of depen-
dent variables governed by nonlinear and scattered
relationships with other influential variables. As
such they offer valuable solutions in all sectors of the
oil and gas industry (Choubineh et al. 2017; Ghor-
bani et al. 2017c 2018 2019, 2020a, b; Mohamadian
et al. 2021; Rashidi et al. 2020; Farsi et al. 2021;
Ranaee et al. 2021).
In this study, three machine-learning algorithms
were deployed: (1) least squares support vector
machine (LSSVM); (2) extreme learning machine
(ELM); and (3) multilayer perceptron (MLP) neural
network. These algorithms were each coupled with
the powerful particle swarm optimization (PSO) to
develop hybrid models that are effective in predict-
ing pore-pressure rapidly and with high accuracy.
Genetic Algorithm (GA)
GA is an evolutionary algorithm that simulates
natural selection and solves problems optimally in
an iterative manner as described in Simon (2013).
High-performance solutions are identified in each
iteration and are used preferentially to contribute to
the modification involved in generating new solu-
tions to consider for the next GA iteration. Con-
versely, the worse-performing solutions are
progressively excluded based on their poor fitness
comparisons.
M. Farsi et al.
Multilayer Perceptron
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) have be-
come widely used since their introduction in the
1990s (Ali 1994). Four factors determine the pre-
diction accuracy of ANN models (Maimon and
Rokach 2009): (a) feature selection (i.e., what input
variables should be included); (b) network archi-
tecture (i.e., number of layers and neurons); (c)
transfer functions between layers; and (d) training
algorithm selection. Multilayer perceptron (MLP) is
the most commonly used feed-forward ANN be-
cause it is easy to set up and adapted for evaluating
large and complex datasets (Bishop 2006). The
Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) is the most common
algorithm applied for training of MLPs because it
tends to converge rapidly and reliably to find high-
performing predictions. However, in large, complex,
nonlinear datasets, the LM algorithm tends to con-
verge too rapidly and it becomes trapped at local
minima. Consequently, to improve the performance
of MLPs with such datasets, it is beneficial to sup-
plement the LM algorithm with a more effective
optimization algorithm.
In this study, the PSO is used for that purpose.
Based on trials and sensitivity analysis, two hidden
layers were selected as the optimum structure for an
MLP to predict pore-pressure, with hidden layer 1
and hidden layer 2 assigned 10 and 5 neurons,
respectively. Similarly, based on sensitivity analysis
performed, the transfer functions ‘‘tansig’’ and
‘‘purelin’’ were selected for hidden layers 1 and 2,
respectively.
Extreme Learning Machine
The ELM algorithm was introduced in 2006 an
alternative feed-forward neural network algorithm
offering a high computational speed (Huang et al.
2006). Applications have shown that ELMs can re-
duce a networkÕs training time and improve its
overall performance. Whereas MLPs use time-con-
suming iterative back-propagation algorithms to
establish the weights and biases applied to their
hidden layers, ELMs, with a single hidden layer,
select weights and biases randomly for that hidden
layer from a uniform distribution. In the ELM, those
randomly selected weights and biases are typically
not adjusted during the network tuning process
(Huang et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2014). The output
weights of ELM are derived using the Moore–Pen-
Predicting Formation Pore-Pressure from Well-Log Data
rose generalized inverse of the hidden-layer output.
Figure 2 illustrates the structure of a single-hidden-
layer ELM (Yeom and Kwak 2017).
More complex variants of ELMs, such as the
two-hidden-layer ELM, the four-hidden-layer ELM
and the multiple-hidden-layer ELM (MELM) have
been applied successfully to more complex, large,
nonlinear datasets (Liu et al. 2019a 2019b; Xiao
et al. 2017). Tests suggested that an MELM was
more effective to predict pore-pressure from input
data from multiple well-logs. More details about
theoretical description and construction process of
MELM can be found in Xiao et al. (2017).
Least Squares Support Vector Machine
LSSVM was developed in 1999 by Suykens and
Vandewalle (1999) as a modified form of the
established regression-based support vector machine
(SVM) machine-learning algorithm (Vapnik 2013).
There are three main differences between the
LSSVM and SVM algorithms. First, LSSVM uses a
least squares error cost function while SVM uses
nonnegative errors for its cost function. Second,
LSSVM uses equality constraints while SVM uses
inequality constraints (Yuan et al. 2015). Third,
whereas SVM conducts training using quadratic
programming (QP), LSSVM conducts training using
linear programing (LP), which reduces the compu-
tational complexity and speeds up the algorithm
(Kisi and Parmar 2016). The LSSVM algorithm has
been employed successfully to solve a wide range of
regression and classification machine-learning tasks
(Adankon and Cheriet 2009; Lima et al. 2010) and it
Figure 2. Extreme learning machine (ELM) with single hidden
layer structure (Yeom and Kwak 2017). X represents two input
variables, Y represents one output (dependent variable), w is a
matrix of weights applied to each node (G1 to G4) in the hidden
layer and b is the bias applied.
was adopted here to predict pore-pressure from
well-log data.
PSO Algorithm
The PSO algorithm was developed by Kennedy
and Eberhart in 1995 (Kennedy 1997; Kennedy and
Eberhart 1995). This algorithm is a stochastic opti-
mization technique originating as an analogy to
animal swarming behaviors observed in the natural
world (Yang and Papa 2016). PSO algorithm in
combination of other optimization and machine-
learning algorithms has been used widely to solve
many nonlinear problems in petroleum industry
achieving high degrees of prediction accuracy
(Atashnezhad et al. 2014). Theoretical background
and implementation details for the PSO algorithm
are available elsewhere (Anemangely et al. 2017;
Kennedy 1997; Mohamadian et al. 2021).
Hybrid Machine-Learning Optimization Algorithms
Hybrid LSSVM–PSO Model
A schematic flow diagram (Fig. 3) illustrates
how LSSVM and PSO algorithms were integrated to
operate as a hybrid LSSVM–PSO machine-learning
optimization model to predict pore-pressure effec-
tively in the dataset evaluated. An RBF kernel
function provides the best pore-pressure predictions.
For tuning the hyperparameters influencing the
LSSVM prediction performance, the PSO deter-
mined optimum values for the regularization
 M. Farsi et al.

Figure 3. Flow diagram for LSSVM–PSO hybrid machine-learning optimization model applied for PP
prediction.

 2  ðc) and the Gaussian RBF kernelÕs vari-

parameter
ance r . These values are listed in Table 1.
Hybrid MELM–PSO Model
MELM neural networks are set up with a
specified number of hidden layers, L, each with a
specified number of neurons (n). Trial-and-error
sensitivity analysis is often used to establish the best
L and n values to use. However, using an opti-
mization to conduct this sensitivity analysis speeds
up the process and evaluates a greater number of
feasible L and n values. On the one hand, MELM
architectures involving a large number of hidden
layers each with many neurons will increase its
structural complexity, computational duration and
more likely lead to over-fitting the available data.
Predicting Formation Pore-Pressure from Well-Log Data

Table 1. Optimized control parameter for developed hybrid LSSVM–PSO used for pore-pressure prediction

PSO LSSVM

Control parameter Value Control parameter Value

Maximum iterations 100 Regularization parameter y 2.2065

Swarm size 60 Variance of RBF Kernel r2 0.6814
Cognitive constant 2.05 Objective function RMSE
Social constant 2.05
Inertia weight (damping ratio) 0.98
Var minimum  10
Var maximum 10
Inertia coefficient (w) 1
Maximum velocity 3
Minimum velocity 3

Figure 4. Flow diagram for hybrid MELM–PSO model.

 M. Farsi et al.

Table 2. RMSE values calculated for a range of hidden layers and neurons in the layers of the MELM–PSO sensitivity analysis for pore-
pressure prediction

Number of hidden layers Number of neurons in the layers

5 10 15 20 25

3 0.168009802 0.153221446 0.083342882 0.04963854 0.04958423

5 0.144563639 0.133925463 0.062135551 0.04563541 0.04935854
7 0.12542371 0.093628744 0.051254873 0.04545285 0.04985168
9 0.13582213 0.103258745 0.055231565 0.04854299 0.04974982

Table 3. Hybrid MELM–PSO control parameters used for predicting pore-pressure

PSO MELM

Control parameter Value Control parameter Value

Maximum iterations 100 Number of input 7

Swarm size 60 Number of neurons/layer 20
Cognitive constant 2.05 Number of hidden layers 5
Social constant 2.05 Objective function RMSE
Inertia weight (damping ratio) 0.99
Var minimum  10
Var maximum 10
Inertia coefficient (w) 1
Maximum velocity 2
Minimum velocity 2

On the other hand, MELM with a small number of
hidden layers and neurons is more likely not to
achieve optimal prediction accuracy of dependent
variables. Therefore, a balance must be struck in
network-element selection to achieve an efficient
MELM model with optimal performance. In this
study, the PSO algorithm was applied in two steps to
construct the optimized MELM network (Fig. 4).
Step 1 Identify optimum narrow ranges for
numbers of hidden layers and neurons in each hid-
den layer (replacing the traditional method of trial-
and-error method).
Step 2 Identify the optimum values for the
weights assigned to each neuron in each hidden
layer and the biases assigned to each hidden layer
(replacing the traditional ELM method of randomly
assigning these values).
The two-step optimization method developed is
able to reduce the computational time of this hybrid
algorithm. The method involves an ‘‘initial-pass’’
tuning optimization procedure. This was performed
with the objective of narrowing down the ranges of
meaningful number of hidden layers and numbers of
neurons in those layers to consider. The established
narrow ranges were then used as constraints for the
developed PSO–MELM–PSO model. The PSO
(Step 2 procedure) calculates the values of weights
and biases for the limited defined ranges of number
of layers and neurons in each hidden layer estab-
lished by Step 1.
The of number of MELM hidden layers, based
on step 1 analysis, was allowed to vary from 3 to 9,
and the number of neurons in each hidden layer was
allowed to vary from 5 to 25. Table 2 displays the
results of the Step 1 analysis performed for the
MELM–PSO hybrid model. The highest pore-pres-
sure prediction accuracy (lowest root mean squared
error, RMSE value) was achieved in the range of 7–9
hidden layers with 20–25 neurons in each hidden
layer. Consequently, in Step 2 of the PSO–MELM–
PSO model developed for prediction of pore-pres-
sure in the studied dataset, the range of the hidden
layers was constrained to vary from 7 to 9, and the
range of the number of neurons in each hidden layer
was constrained to vary from 20 to 25.
Predicting Formation Pore-Pressure from Well-Log Data

The values of control parameters established by

trial-and-error for the PSO algorithm are listed in
Table 3. The number of iterations for the PSO
algorithm used in Step 1 (MELM–PSO) was 40. For
the second-step application of the PSO algorithm,
i.e., to select optimum weights and biases in the
MELM–PSO configuration, the number of iterations
was set to 100.

Hybrid MLP–PSO Model

A schematic flow diagram for implementing the

hybrid MLP–PSO model is illustrated in Figure 5.
The PSO algorithm was applied with 100 iterations
to determine the optimum weights and biases for the
specified number of hidden layers and number of
neurons within each hidden layer of the MLP. The
PSO control-parameter values defined in Table 3
were applied, i.e., the same control-parameter values
used for the MELM–PSO model. Table 4 lists the
MLP setup for the hybrid MLP–PSO model used to
predict pore-pressure.

DATA COLLECTION
AND CHARACTERIZATION

Marun Oil Field Description

Figure 5. Flow diagram for implementing the hybrid MLP–
Three wellbores (MN # 281, MN # 297 and MN PSO neural network used for pore-pressure prediction.
# 378) were evaluated to provide pore-pressure
predictions for the giant Marun oil field onshore
southwest Iran (Fig. 6). The field was discovered in
trated the reservoir in the measured depth range
1963 and it is one of the largest oil fields in the
from 3660 to 3933 m (273 m thick). Datasets from
Zagros Basin consisting of two oil reservoirs. The
two other Marun oil field wells (MN# 279 and MN#
Asmari (Oligocene to Early Miocene) and Banges-
378) were used subsequently as additional indepen-
tan (Upper Cretaceous) Formations collectively
dent testing subsets to confirm the generality and
contain in-place oil resources of some 46 billion
reliability of the developed algorithms. Pore-pres-
barrels. The Khami (Lower Cretaceous) Formation
sure was the dependent variable representing the
forms an underlying natural gas reservoir with some
prediction objective. The petrophysical variables
462 trillion cubic feet2 of gas in place.
were all derived from common well-log tools (Dar-
ling 2005; Rubin and Hubbard 2005; Lyons and
Plisga 2011; Satter and Iqbal 2015; Ghasemi and
Data Collection
Bayuk 2020) recorded or calculated from wireline
data. They included effective stress (deff), pore
In total, 1792 well-log data records from well
compressibility (Cp), corrected gamma ray (CGR)
MN # 281, drilled in 2015, were compiled for initial
adjusted for uranium contents, uncorrected spectral
training and testing analysis of the algorithms across
gamma ray (SGR), potassium (POTA) from the
the Asmari carbonate reservoir. MN # 281 pene-
SGR tool, thorium (THOR) from the SGR tool,
2 uranium (URAN) from the SGR tool, the photo-
1 cubic feet = 0.0283168466 cubic meter.

Table 4. Hybrid MLP–PSO control parameters used for predicting pore-pressure
PSO
Control parameter Value
Maximum iterations 100
Swarm size 60
Cognitive constant 2.05
Social constant 2.05
Inertia weight (damping ratio) 0.98
Var minimum 1
Var maximum 1 Objective function
Inertia coefficient (w) 1
Maximum velocity 0.2
Minimum velocity  0.2
electric absorption factor (PEF), bulk formation
density (RHOB), compressional sonic transit time
(DT), neutron porosity (NPHI) and deep resistivity
(ILD). Sensitivity analysis suggested that the com-
positional variables (POTA, THOR and URAN)
were not related to pore-pressure. The remaining 9
variables show complex relationships with pore-
pressure and depth and were therefore used as in-
puts for the machine-learning prediction analysis.
Table 5 statistically summarizes the distributions of
the 9 input variables and the dependent variable,
pore-pressure, across the Asmari reservoir forma-
tion for the three wells studied MN# 281 (1792 data
records), MN# 279 (1225 data records) and MN# 378
(1225 data records).
Variable Distributions vs. Depth and Pore-pressure
The distributions of the 9 input variables vs.
depth for MN#281, contoured for pore-pressure, are
displayed individually in Figures 7 and 8. The con-
tour plots identify that the highest pore-pressures
occur in the depth interval 3850–3875 m of the As-
mari Formation penetrated by well MN#281. Gen-
erally, the lowest pore-pressures exist in the depth
interval 3750–3775 m and relatively low pore-pres-
sures prevail in the upper part of the formation,
above  3800 m depth. Higher effective stress (deff)
in the upper part of the formation tended to corre-
spond with lower pore-pressures, whereas lower
gamma ray readings (CGR and SGR) tended to
correspond with relatively high pore-pressures in
that part of the formation (Fig. 7).
M. Farsi et al.
MLP
Control parameter Value
Input variables 7
Number of hidden layers 2
Input layer neurons 7
Hidden layer l neurons 10
Hidden layer 2 neurons 5
Output layer neurons 1
RMSE
Higher NPHI and DT in the upper part of the
formation tended to correspond with lower pore-
pressures, whereas lower RHOB values tended to
correspond with relatively high pore-pressures in
that part of the formation (Fig. 8). In contrast with
the other variables, mid-range ILD values corre-
sponded to relatively high pore-pressures in the
upper part of the formation. On the other hand, pore
compressibility (Cp) and photoelectric absorption
factor (PEF) values did not show obvious relation-
ships with pore-pressure in the upper part of the
formation. No obvious relationships existed between
the values of the input variables and pore-pressure
in the lower part of the Asmari Formation (Figs. 7
and 8). The distributions displayed in Figures 7 and
8 confirm that none of the 9 input variables would be
individually reliable on its own for predicting pore-
pressure.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Feature Ranking for Pore-pressure Prediction
Feature selection determines the optimal num-
ber of input parameters to combine in hybrid mod-
els. The GA–MLP described above was applied to
reduce the number of independent variables in the
models by evaluation using multiple training and
testing subsets of data records. Trial-and-error
identified a two-layer MLP with 6 and 5 nodes in its
first and second hidden layers, respectively, as the
most effective feature selection model at minimizing
the RMSE of the predicted pore-pressure values.
Predicting Formation Pore-Pressure from Well-Log Data
Figure 6. Map showing the location of the Marun oil field, onshore southwest Iran.
Having established the best architecture for the
MLP, several methods were evaluated for selecting
multiple mutually exclusive testing and training
subsets of data records for model evaluation. One
approach considered was to select randomly 30% of
all available data records for the testing subset, and
then assigning the remaining 70% of data records to
the training subset. This method failed to prevent
over-fitting during the feature selection process,
leading to some features being attributed too much
influence in the predictions. A more successful ap-
proach was achieved by applying an eightfold vali-
dation technique, because it overcame over-fitting
issues; eightfold validation divided the entire dataset
into 8 non-overlapping sections. A single section was
then selected as a subset to be evaluated. The
remaining 7 sections of the dataset, in each case,
were assigned to the training subset. For each subset
selection, the MLP was evaluated 80 times (10 times
for each training / testing subset combination). The
model with the lowest predicted vs. recorded pore-
pressure RMSE was then selected for each of the 10
training / testing subset combination. The average of
the 10-best RMSE values obtained for the eightfold
 M. Farsi et al.

Table 5. Statistical characterization of the variables constituting the well-log dataset for three Marun oil field wells: MN#281, MN#279 and
MN#378. The variable values for all data records are available to download in a supplementary file (see Supplementary Data) (1
psi = 6.8947590868 kPa, 1ft = 0.3048 m)

Dataset vari- Dv Cp CGR SGR PEF RHOB DT NPHI ILD Pore-pres-

ables sure

Wells Units Psi psi1 API API Barns/ g/cm3 ls/ft (%) ohm-m psi
cm3
MN#281 Mean 4501.3 1.30E06 21.8 41.3 4.00 2.55 64.7 13.9 1162.6 4733.7
1792 Data Re- Standard devi- 302.8 1.34E07 20.2 20.9 0.93 0.18 9.1 5.6 4271.4 340.9
cords ation
Variance 91,639.3 1.79E14 408.4 438.0 0.87 0.03 82.4 31.6 18234882.3 116137.9
Minimum 2146.9 1.06E06 1.1 12.2 1.91 1.20 51.1 1.3 0.4 4092.2
Maximum 5080.9 2.07E06 121.4 143.6 6.33 2.87 117.2 46.7 20,000.0 5375.4
MN#297 Mean 4860.4 1.41E06 52.1 36.1 4.77 2.67 72.1 11.5 814.0 4877.0
1225 data re- Standard devi- 245.0 2.61E07 29.3 15.9 1.83 0.12 8.6 7.0 3446.9 268.4
cords ation
Variance 59,952.4 6.80E14 856.0 254.0 3.33 0.02 73.1 48.4 ######### 71,994.6
Minimum 4371.1 1.10E06 5.1 6.0 2.63 2.35 41.9 1.0 0.4 4474.0
Maximum 5435.0 2.25E06 110.2 78.3 8.68 2.98 89.3 34.7 20,000.0 5543.0
MN#378 Mean 4605.3 1.39E06 60.0 37.5 14.93 2.52 60.0 12.0 1198.2 4860.0
1225 data re- Standard devi- 325.6 1.80E06 9.6 13.0 2.83 0.13 9.6 5.8 4409.9 168.1
cords ation
Variance 105,918.8 3.25E12 91.8 168.8 8.02 0.02 91.8 34.1 ######### 28,235.3
Minimum 3779.8  4.02E05 48.3 13.6 4.29 2.12 48.3 0.0 0.5 4498.0
Maximum 5192.4 4.07E05 100.3 89.5 17.48 2.77 100.3 34.4 20,000.0 5428.0

was then taken as representative of the prediction
performance accuracy of the feature selection eval-
uated. The eightfold validation sequence applied is
illustrated in Figure 9.
The main purpose of this method of imple-
mentation feature selection was to determine the
optimal combination of the 9 input variables (fea-
tures) listed in Table 6, i.e., the combination of
features that achieved the minimum pore-pressure
RMSE values. The results of the feature selection
analysis are presented in Table 7 and Figure 10. The
lowest pore-pressure RMSE value achieved was
71.79 psi.3 This was associated with a 7-variable
combination, which excluded variables Z6 (RHOB)
and Z7 (DT). For models with more than 7 features,
the RMSE was higher than for the 7-variable com-
bination identified. It is clear from Table 7 that
inclusion of a variable in one round of feature
selection did not guarantee its inclusions in a sub-
sequent round. For example, feature Z2 was selected
as one of the best variables for a 3-variable combi-
nation but not for a 4-variable combination. How-
ever, variable Z2 was selected as one of the variables
for the best 6-variable and 7-variable combinations,
3
1 psi = 6.8947590868 kPa.
Identifying the Best-performing Algorithm
for Pore-pressure Prediction
Evaluating the models with normalized data
avoids systematic biases resulting from different
value scales among the input variables. Thus, Eq. 8
was used to normalize all the data variables to range
from  1 to + 1.
X  X min
X norm ¼ 2  1: ð8Þ
X max  X min
The studied dataset was divided into two
groups—the training and testing subsets. The train-
ing subset comprised 70% of all data records, which
were selected randomly and distributed evenly
across the entire range of the dependent variableÕs
distribution. Then, 15% of data records constituted
the validation subset and 15% of data records con-
stituted the testing subset, which were held inde-
pendently of the training subset. The testing subset
was used to verify the prediction accuracy of opti-
mum model solutions derived during training in
terms of its prediction repeatability. The testing
subset also provided indications of over-fitting, if it
occurred.
Predicting Formation Pore-Pressure from Well-Log Data

Figure 7. Contour plots of the input variables deff, Cp, CGR, SGR and PEF vs. depth and contoured for pore-pressure for Marun oil field
well MN#281 (1 psi = 6.8947590868 kPa).

Performance accuracy of the three-hybrid ma- Pn

chine-learning optimization algorithms was assessed i¼1 jPDi j
AAPD ¼ ð11Þ
in terms of errors between measured and predicted n
pore-pressure trends vs. depth. The statistical mea- Standard Deviation (SD):
sures of prediction accuracy used were percentage sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn 2
deviation (PDi), average percentage deviation i¼1 ðDi  DimeanÞ
(APD), average absolute percentage deviation SD ¼ ð12Þ
n1
(AAPD), standard deviation (STD), mean squared
error (MSE), root mean square error (RMSE) and 1X n
coefficient of determination (R2). The computation Dimean ¼ ðn  nPredictedi Þ ð13Þ
n i¼1 Measuredi
formulas for these statistical accuracy measures are
as follows: Mean Square Error (MSE):
nðMeasuredÞ  nðPredictedÞ 1X n
PDi ¼ x100 ð9Þ MSE ¼ ðn  nPredictedi Þ2 ð14Þ
nðMeasuredÞ n i¼1 Measuredi
Average percent deviation (APD): Root Mean Square Error (RMSE):
Pn sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PDi Pn
APD ¼ i¼1 ð10Þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2
n i¼1 ðxi  yi Þ
RMSE ¼ MSE ¼ ð15Þ
n
Absolute average percent deviation (AAPD):

Figure 8. Contour plots of the input variables RHOB, DT, NPHI and ILD vs. depth and contoured for pore-pressure for Marun oil field
well MN#281 (1 psi = 6.8947590868 kPa).
Coefficient of Determination (R2):
PN 2 and 11 and Figure 11.
2 i¼1 ðnPredictedi  nMeasuredi Þ
R ¼1 Pn 2
; ð16Þ
PN n
I¼1 Measured i
i¼1 ðnPredictedi  n Þ
where n is number of data records, xi is measured
dependent variable value for the ith data record, yi is
predicted dependent variable value for the ith data
record, and n is parameter value.
The most accurate pore-pressure prediction
models were assessed based on the feature selection
involving 7 input variables (CGR, PEF, Cp, deff,
NPHI, ILD and SGR; Table 7). Of the 1792 data
records in the dataset sampling Marun oil field well
MN#281, for each evaluation of the model 1250
( 70%) data records, spread across the full pore-
pressure value range, were allocated to the training
subset. The, 260 data records were allocated to the
validation subset. The remaining 282 data, also re-
cords spread across the full pore-pressure value
range, were allocated to the testing subset (for
MN#281). Using these allocations, pore-pressure
prediction performance was compared between the
empirical equations and the three machine-learning
optimization algorithms (MLP–PSO, LSSVM–PSO
M. Farsi et al.
and MELM–PSO) as presented in Tables 8, 9, 10
The accuracies of pore-pressure prediction for
the three machine-learning optimization algorithms
and empirical equations evaluated for training, val-
idation, testing subsets and full dataset (Tables 8, 9,
10, 11) in terms of six prediction accuracy statistics,
highlight the superiority of the hybrid machine-
learning methods. A comparison of these accuracy
measures clearly reveals MELM–PSO as the best-
performing model overall. It achieved a RMSE of
11.551 psi4 (full dataset) evaluating a pore-pressure
range for the MN#281 well dataset extending across
1283 psi. A comparison of the prediction perfor-
mance of the three-hybrid machine-learning models
and three empirical models developed for predicting
pore-pressure (Fig. 11) reveals that only the
MELM–PSO model achieved those predictions to a
high degree of accuracy. The LSSVM–PSO model
performed slightly better than the MLP–PSO model
in terms of prediction accuracy but neither com-
pared with the MELM–PSO modelÕs performance
(Tables 8, 9, 10, 11).
4
1 psi = 6.8947590868 kPa.
Predicting Formation Pore-Pressure from Well-Log Data

Figure 9. Schematic diagram of the eightfold cross-validation method applied for

selecting testing and training subsets to evaluate.

Figure 12 displays more clearly the pore-pres-

Table 6. Nine input variables considered for feature selection in sure prediction performance comparison among the
the prediction of pore-pressure for the Marun oil field dataset (1 three-hybrid algorithms evaluated. Figure 13 dis-
psi = 6.8947590868 kPa, 1ft = 0.3048 m) plays the relative prediction percentage error
Variable Unit Symbol Code (Eq. 23) for an example pair of training ( 70% of
data records, 1250 in total), validation ( 15% of
deff psi Z1 data records, 260 in total) and testing subsets
Cp psi1 Z2
CGR API Z3
( 15% of data records, 282 in total) evaluated by
SGR API Z4 each of the three pore-pressure prediction models.
PEF barns/cm3 Z5 The relative error percentage values were cat-
RHOB g/cm3 Z6 egorized for each model into positive (over-esti-
DT ls/ft Z7 mate) and negative (under-estimate) ranges. These
NPHI % Z8
ILD ohm/m Z9
were sampled by both the training and testing sub-
sets. Note that the vertical scale in Figure 13 for the
MELM–PSO model is expanded by an order of
magnitude, highlighting the much smaller magni-
tudes of relative errors generated for individual data
records by that model. The results show that the
Figure 11 displays the poor pore-pressure pre- empirical models generated relative errors (%) be-
diction performance for the well MN#281 dataset tween  0.2 and 0.6 but the hybrid machine-learning
achieved by applying the Eaton sonic-based model models generated relative errors (%) between
(Eq. 3) and Eaton resistivity-based model (Eq. 2) vs.  0.004 and 0.025. The MELM–PSO achieved sub-
the pore-pressure values measured by RFT tools. As stantially the lowest relative errors (%) between
with the other well-log derived empirical formulas,  0.004 and 0.004.
the pore compressibility model also did not achieve The shale effects leading to substantial pore-
acceptable pore-pressure prediction accuracy for the pressure underestimates are revealed in Figure 14,
MH#281 wellbore. Figure 11 also reveals the high in which the Eaton sonic pore-pressure calculated
coefficient of determination achieved by the values are plotted vs. depth with the lithologies
MELM–PSO method (R2 = 0.9987). highlighted. The Eaton sonic model empirical for-
 M. Farsi et al.

Table 7. Feature selections applying the eightfold validation method with GA–MLP to find the optimum combination for pore-pressure
prediction (1 psi = 6.8947590868 kPa)

Number of input variables Input variables RMSE (psi)

1 Z3 207.515
2 Z3, Z5 162.055
3 Z1, Z2, Z3 123.325
4 Z8, Z3, Z5, Z1 111.430
5 Z1, Z5, Z8, Z3, Z9 97.608
6 Z2, Z1, Z5, Z8, Z6, Z3 75.428
7 Z3, Z5, Z2, Z1, Z8, Z9, Z4 (Best) 71.790
8 Z6, Z1, Z5, Z3, Z8, Z2, Z4, Z9 81.876
9 Z7, Z3, Z2, Z5, Z4, Z9, Z8, Z6, Z1 85.095

ships that may vary from one shale formation to

another.
For the pore-pressure analysis, Figure 15 dis-
plays the effect across multiple iterations of com-
bining the PSO algorithm with three ML algorithms
MLP, LSSVM and MELM. The MELM–PSO
algorithm converged more efficiently to the lowest
RMSE value after 45 iterations.

DEVELOPMENT AND GENERALIZATION

Figure 10. RMSE prediction accuracy achieved for pore-
pressure applying the GA–MLP feature selection
combinations of the 9 input variables available (1
psi = 6.8947590868 kPa).
mula (Eq. 3) used to calculate pore-pressure in-
cludes effective stress (vertical stress) and sonic log
transit time data. To correct for shale impacts, cor-
rections need to be applied, but this complicates the
formulaic relationships with lithological relation-
OF MELM–PSO MACHINE-LEARNING
MODEL
The results presented in the preceding section
show training, validation and testing of the algo-
rithms in terms of the data records from well MN#
281 only. To evaluate the accuracy of the algorithms
for general application to the Marun oil field as a
whole, additional datasets from wells MN# 297 (1225
data) with and MN# 378 (1225 data) were evaluated
by applying the best-performing algorithm MELM–
PSO 7-variable model developed using the MN#281

Table 8. Pore-pressure prediction accuracy achieved by the hybrid machine-learning optimization algorithm and empirical models applied
to the training subsets ( 70% of the data records) for the 7-feature selection for Marun oil field MN#281 (1 psi = 6.8947590868 kPa)

Pore-pressure prediction accuracy measures based on 7-variable feature selection

(training subset: 1250 data records)

Models Statistical errors APD (%) AAPD (%) SD (psi) MSE (psi) RMSE (psi) R2

Empirical models Pore compressibility model  0.243 6.679 419.6 176,972 420.7 0.0212
Eaton Mosel (resistivity) 1.546 6.099 369.8 137,727 371.1 0.0003
Eaton model (sonic) 1.126 5.956 356.4 128,078 357.9 0.0018
Hybrid ML-optimizer models MLP–PSO 0.013 1.366 71.7 5326 73.0 0.9455
LSSVM–PSO 0.006 0.862 45.4 2136 46.2 0.9772
MELM–PSO 0.006 0.223 11.1 141 11.86 0.9985
Predicting Formation Pore-Pressure from Well-Log Data

Table 9. Pore-pressure prediction accuracy achieved by the hybrid machine-learning optimization algorithm and empirical models applied
to the validation subsets ( 15% of the data records) for the 7-feature selection for Marun oil field MN#281 (1 psi = 6.8947590868 kPa)

Pore-pressure prediction accuracy measures based on 7-variable feature selection

(validation subset: 260 data records)

Models Statistical errors APD (%) AAPD (%) SD (psi) MSE (psi) RMSE (psi) R2

Empirical models Pore compressibility model 14.985 15.794 1089.8 1,197,539 1094.3 0.3798
Eaton Mosel (resistivity) 17.066 17.066 1153.6 1,337,556 1156.5 0.3539
Eaton model (sonic) 16.785 16.785 1137.9 1,297,441 1139.1 0.3473
Hybrid ML-optimizer models MLP–PSO  0.043 1.381 82.7 6936 83.3 0.9546
LSSVM–PSO  0.023 0.879 52.1 2827 53.2 0.9884
MELM–PSO  0.023 0.206 12.1 165 12.85 0.9929

Table 10. Pore-pressure prediction accuracy achieved by the hybrid machine-learning optimization algorithm and empirical models applied
to the testing subsets ( 15% of the data records) for the 7-feature selection for Marun oil field MN#281 (1 psi = 6.8947590868 kPa)

Pore-pressure prediction accuracy measures based on 7-variable feature selection

(testing subset: 282 data records)

Models Statistical errors APD (%) AAPD (%) SD (psi) MSE (psi) RMSE (psi) R2

Empirical models Pore compressibility model 3.291 5.131 285.9 82,448 287.1 0.348
Eaton Mosel (resistivity) 8.602 9.035 482.3 235,101 484.9 0.2034
Eaton model (sonic) 7.155 7.706 402.3 163,395 404.2 0.2684
Hybrid ML-optimizer models MLP–PSO  0.249 1.380 76.5 5942 77.1 0.965
LSSVM–PSO 0.003 0.892 48.4 2422 49.2 0.9666
MELM–PSO 0.003 0.225 11.8 157 12.53 0.9833

Table 11. Pore-pressure prediction accuracy achieved by the hybrid machine-learning optimization algorithm and empirical models applied
to the full subsets ( 100% of the data records) for the 7-feature selections for Marun oil field MN#281 (1 psi = 6.8947590868 kPa)

Pore-pressure prediction accuracy measures based on 7-variable feature selection

(full dataset: 1792 data records)

Models Statistical errors APD (%) AAPD (%) SD (psi) MSE (psi) RMSE (psi) R2

Empirical models Pore compressibility model 2.293 7.050 527.8 281,859 530.9 0.0023
Eaton Mosel (resistivity) 3.849 7.020 516.2 269,928 519.5 0.04
Eaton model (sonic) 3.942 7.087 522.8 275,325 524.7 0.0391
Hybrid ML-optimizer models MLP–PSO  0.033 1.245 70.3 5140 71.7 0.9537
LSSVM–PSO 0.001 0.789 44.8 2073 45.5 0.9806
MELM–PSO 0.001 0.201 10.9 133 11.55 0.9987

dataset. Statistical measures of accuracy achieved
for data records from these two wells are shown in
Table 12. A comparison of the results of Table 12
with those of Tables 8, 9, 10 and 11 confirms the high
pore-pressure prediction accuracy achieved by the
developed MELM–PSO model, trained with
MN#281 data, when applied to other wells in the
Marun oil field.
Figures 16 and 17 plot the actual vs. predicted
pore-pressure values achieved by the MELM–PSO
model trained with MN#281 data records and ap-
plied to all the data records available for wells MN#
 M. Farsi et al.

Figure 11. Predicted vs. measured pore-pressure comparisons for three-hybrid machine-learning optimization models and empirical
models applied to the complete MN#281 dataset of 1792 data records with the 7-variable model (1 psi = 6.8947590868 kPa).

297 and MN# 378. The performance accuracy
achieved by this algorithm confirms its reliability for
application across the Marun oil field in wells, or
sections of the reservoir, for which direct formation-
pressure measurements are not available. The
method can be used in other fields but, of course,
would need to be recalibrated initially with some
direct formation-pressure measurements from at
least one well in each of the fields to which it is
applied.
Figures 18 and 19 show the performance of the
MELM–PSO model in providing accurate pore-
Predicting Formation Pore-Pressure from Well-Log Data
Figure 12. Predicted vs. measured pore-pressure compared for
the three-hybrid machine-learning optimization models
evaluated for 1792 data records through the Asmari
carbonate reservoir for Marun oil field well MN#281 (1
psi = 6.8947590868 kPa).
pressure predictions for wells MN #297 and MN
#378, respectively. These figures are useful for dis-
tinguishing depth intervals in these wells associated
with high pore-pressures. They further confirm the
reliability of the MELM–PSO model for predicting
pore-pressure in wells drilled throughout the Marun
oil field.
CONCLUSIONS
Subsurface pore-pressure prediction trends with
depth can be achieved to high degrees of accuracy
for the Asmari carbonate reservoir formation (273 m
thick) drilled in the giant onshore Marun oil field in
southwest Iran. This was achieved using hybrid
machine-learning optimization models applied to a
diverse suite of petrophysical input data. The mul-
tilayer extreme learning machine model hybridized
with a PSO (MELM–PSO) outperformed substan-
tially a multilayer perceptron or a least squares
vector machine coupled with a PSO when applied to
a dataset consisting of 1792 data records and 9
petrophysical variables. The MELM–PSO model
applies the PSO, firstly to select meaningful range
constraints for the numbers of MELM layers and
neurons in each layer, and subsequently to find the
optimum weights and biases to apply to those neu-
rons and layers.
When well-log variables were used collectively
in trained models, they were able to predict pore-
pressure definitively in the Asmari reservoir across
the Marun oil field. Feature selection established
that the MELM–PSO model, incorporating 7 input
variables (CGR, PEF, Cp, deff, NPHI, ILD and
SGR), provided the most accurate pore-pressure
predictions for the full dataset of well MN#281
(RMSE = 11.551 psi5 for a pore-pressure range
encountered of 1283 psi). It also achieved similar
prediction accuracy when tested with data from two
other wells drilled in the Marun oil field (MN#297
and MN#378). The data were pre-processed by
applying a Savitzky–Golay (SG) filter, and feature
selection was achieved by filter ranking using the
wrapping method.
Assessment of widely used empirical pore-
pressure prediction formulas based on sonic or
resistivity well-log data or pore compressibility data
were outperformed substantially by even the poor-
est-performing MELM–PSO feature selections. A
significant downside to the empirical models evalu-
ated is that their pore-pressure predictions are im-
pacted substantially by shale effects, which are
lithology dependent.
A standard MELM algorithm executed alone
was less efficient because its hyperparameters were
selected randomly. When hybridized with an opti-
mization algorithm (MELM–PSO) to select opti-
mally the MELM hyperparameters, its performance
was improved substantially, particularly with rigor-
ous feature selection. The method proposed can be
adapted readily for application to other oil and gas
fields. However, in reservoirs that display substantial
spatial heterogeneity, the optimum feature selection
may vary from well to well across the field. Future
studies are planned to test the model with multiple-
well datasets focusing on ways to optimize further
well-log feature selection for heterogeneous reser-
voirs.
5
1 psi = 6.8947590868 kPa.
 M. Farsi et al.

Figure 13. Pore-pressure prediction relative errors (%) compared for the training, validation and testing subsets of the empirical
equation and hybrid machine-learning optimization models evaluated for the MN#281 dataset. Note that both training, validation
and testing subsets are spread across the entire depth interval sampled and are displayed sequentially in these plots for illustrative
purposes only. Note the different vertical scales on the right-side plots.
Predicting Formation Pore-Pressure from Well-Log Data

Figure 14. Shales effects in the Asmari reservoir zone of MH#281 impacting the
empirically calculated Eaton sonic log pore-pressure values (1
psi = 6.8947590868 kPa).

Figure 15. Comparison of RMSE achieved after each Iteration

for pore-pressure predictions by the three-hybrid machine-
learning optimization models evaluated for the MN#281
dataset (MLP–PSO, LSSVM–PSO and MELM–PSO) (1
psi = 6.8947590868 kPa).
 M. Farsi et al.

Table 12. Pore-pressure prediction accuracy of the MELM–PSO model, trained with MN#281 data, applied to the complete datasets
available for Marun oil field wells MN#297 and MN#378 and treating them as additional independent testing subsets (1
psi = 6.8947590868 kPa)

Pore-pressure prediction accuracy measures for MELM–PSO model

Trained with MN#281 data applied to other Marun oil field wells

Wells APD (%) AAPD (%) SD (psi) MSE (psi) RMSE (psi) R2

MN#297 0.002 0.226 9.4 100.6 10.0 0.9978

1225 data records
MN#378  0.004 0.232 9.6 103.0 10.1 0.9942
1225 data records

Figure 16. Cross-plot of predicted vs. measured pore-pressure

values compared for the MEML–PSO mode trained with data Figure 18. Relative error (%) pore-pressure prediction by
from well MN#281 applied to MN#297 data points (1 MELM–PSO algorithm for all data index well MN# 297 data
psi = 6.8947590868 kPa). records.

Figure 17. Cross-plot of predicted vs. measured pore-pressure

Figure 19. Relative error (%) pore-pressure prediction by
values compared for the MEML–PSO mode trained with data
MELM–PSO algorithm for all data index well MN# 378 data
from well MN#281 applied to MN#378 data points (1
records.
psi = 6.8947590868 kPa).
Predicting Formation Pore-Pressure from Well-Log Data
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was supported by Tomsk
Polytechnic University under Grant Number VIU-
CPPSND-214/2020.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The online version contains supplementary
material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-
021-09852-2.
REFERENCES
Adankon, M. M., & Cheriet, M. (2009). Model selection for the
LS-SVM. Application to handwriting recognition. Pattern
Recognition, 42(12), 3264–3270.
Ahmed, A., Elkatatny, S., Ali, A., Mahmoud, M., & Abdulra-
heem, A. (2019). New model for pore pressure prediction
while drilling using artificial neural networks. Arabian Jour-
nal for Science and Engineering, 44(6), 6079–6088.
Ahmed, S., Mahmoud, A. A., Elkatatny, S., Mahmoud, M., &
Abdulraheem, A. (2019). Prediction of pore and fracture
pressures using support vector machine. Paper presented at
the international petroleum technology conference. https://doi.
org/10.2523/IPTC-19523-MS.
Ali, J. (1994). Neural networks: a new tool for the petroleum
industry? Paper presented at the European petroleum com-
puter conference. https://doi.org/10.2118/27561-MS.
Anemangely, M., Ramezanzadeh, A., & Tokhmechi, B. (2017).
Shear wave travel time estimation from petrophysical logs
using ANFIS-PSO algorithm: A case study from Ab-Tey-
mour Oilfield. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engi-
neering, 38, 373–387.
Andrian, D., Rosid, M. S., & Septyandy, M. R. (2020). Pore
pressure prediction using anfis method on well and seismic
data field ‘‘Ayah’’. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Sci-
ence and Engineering (Vol. 854, No. 1, p. 012041). IOP
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/546/3/032017/m
eta.
Atashbari, V., & Tingay, M. R. (2012). Pore pressure prediction in
carbonate reservoirs. Paper presented at the SPE Latin
America and Caribbean petroleum engineering conference. h
ttps://doi.org/10.2118/150835-MS.
Atashnezhad, A., Wood, D. A., Fereidounpour, A., & Khosra-
vanian, R. (2014). Designing and optimizing deviated well-
bore trajectories using novel particle swarm algorithms.
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 21, 1184–
1204.
Azadpour, M., Manaman, N. S., Kadkhodaie-Ilkhchi, A., & Sed-
ghipour, M.-R. (2015). Pore pressure prediction and model-
ing using well-logging data in one of the gas fields in south of
Iran. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 128, 15–
23.
Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning.
Springer.
Bowers, G. L. (1995). Pore pressure estimation from velocity data:
Accounting for overpressure mechanisms besides under-
compaction. SPE Drilling and Completion, 10(02), 89–95.
Chandrashekar, G., & Sahin, F. (2014). A survey on feature
selection methods. Computers & Electrical Engineering,
40(1), 16–28.
Choubineh, A., Ghorbani, H., Wood, D. A., Moosavi, S. R.,
Khalafi, E., & Sadatshojaei, E. (2017). Improved predictions
of wellhead choke liquid critical-flow rates: Modelling based
on hybrid neural network training learning based optimiza-
tion. Fuel, 207, 547–560.
Darling, T. (2005). Well-logging and formation evaluation. Else-
vier.
Eaton, B. A. (1975). The equation for geopressure prediction
from well-logs. Paper presented at the fall meeting of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. https://doi.org/10.
2118/5544-MS.
Farsi, M., Barjouei, H. S., Wood, D. A., Ghorbani, H.,
Mohamadian, N., Davoodi, S., Nasriani, H. R., & Ah-
madi Alvar, M. (2021). Prediction of oil flow rate
through orifice flow meters: Optimized machine-learning
techniques. Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measur
ement.2020.108943.
Ghasemi, M., & Bayuk, I. (2020). Bounds for pore space param-
eters of petroelastic models of carbonate rocks. IZVESTIYA,
Physics of the Solid Earth. https://doi.org/10.1134/S10693513
20020032.
Ghorbani, H., Moghadasi, J., & Wood, D. A. (2017a). Prediction
of gas flow rates from gas condensate reservoirs through
wellhead chokes using a firefly optimization algorithm.
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 45, 256–271.
Ghorbani, H., & Moghadasi, J. (2014). Development of a new
comprehensive model for choke performance correlation in
Iranian oil wells. Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(17),
877–882.
Ghorbani, H., Moghadasi, J., Dashtbozorg, A., & Abarghoyi, P.
G. (2017b). The exposure of new estimating models for
bubble point pressure in crude oil of one of the oil fields in
Iran. American Journal of Oil and Chemical Technologies,
178–193.
Ghorbani, H., Wood, D. A., Choubineh, A., Mohamadian, N.,
Tatar, A., Farhangian, H., & Nikooey, A. (2020a). Per-
formance comparison of bubble point pressure from oil
PVT data: Several neurocomputing techniques compared.
Experimental and Computational Multiphase Flow, 2(4),
225–246.
Ghorbani, H., Moghadasi, J., Dashtbozorg, A., & Kooti, S.
(2017c). Developing a new multiphase model for choke
function relation for Iran’s gas wells. American Journal of Oil
and Chemical Technologies.
Ghorbani, H., Wood, D. A., Choubineh, A., Tatar, A., Abarghoyi,
P. G., Madani, M., & Mohamadian, N. (2018). Prediction of
oil flow rate through an orifice flow meter: Artificial intelli-
gence alternatives compared. Petroleum. https://doi.org/10.1
016/j.petlm.2018.09.003.
Ghorbani, H., Wood, D. A., Moghadasi, J., Choubineh, A., Ab-
dizadeh, P., & Mohamadian, N. (2019). Predicting liquid
flow-rate performance through wellhead chokes with genetic
and solver optimizers: An oil field case study. Journal of
Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 9(2),
1355–1373.
Ghorbani, H., Moghadasi, J., Mohamadian, N., Mansouri Zadeh,
M., Hezarvand Zangeneh, M., Molayi, O., & Kamali, A.
(2014). Development of a New Comprehensive Model for
Choke Performance Correlation in Iranian Gas Condensate
Wells, 8(17), 308–313.
Ghorbani, H., Wood, D. A., Mohamadian, N., Rashidi, S., Da-
voodi, S., Soleimanian, A., & Mehrad, M. (2020b). Adaptive
neuro-fuzzy algorithm applied to predict and control multi-
phase flow rates through wellhead chokes. Flow Measurement
and Instrumentation, 76, 101849.

Huang, G.-B., Zhu, Q.-Y., & Siew, C.-K. (2006). Extreme learning
machine: Theory and applications. Neurocomputing, 70(1–3),
489–501.
Hutomo, P. S., Rosid, M. S., & Haidar, M. W. (2019). Pore
pressure prediction using eaton and neural network method
in carbonate field ‘‘X’’ based on seismic data. In IOP con-
ference series: Materials science and engineering (Vol. 546,
No. 3, p. 032017). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/17
57-899X/546/3/032017/meta.
Jain, A., & Zongker, D. (1997). Feature selection: Evaluation,
application, and small sample performance. IEEE Transac-
tions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 19(2),
153–158.
John, G. H., Kohavi, R., & Pfleger, K. (1994). Irrelevant features
and the subset selection problem. In Machine learning pro-
ceedings 1994 (pp. 121–129). Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-1-55860-335-6.50023-4.
Kennedy, J. (1997). The particle swarm: social adaptation of
knowledge. Paper presented at the proceedings of 1997 IEEE
international conference on evolutionary computation
(ICEC’97). https://doi.org/10.1080/10.1109/ICEC.1997.59232
6.
Kennedy, J., & Eberhart, R. (1995). Particle swarm optimization.
Paper presented at the proceedings of ICNN’95-international
conference on neural networks. https://doi.org/10.1080/10.110
9/ICNN.1995.488968.
Keshavarzi, R., & Jahanbakhshi, R. (2013). Real-time prediction
of pore pressure gradient through an artificial intelligence
approach: A case study from one of Middle East oil fields.
European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering,
17(8), 675–686.
Kisi, O., & Parmar, K. S. (2016). Application of least square
support vector machine and multivariate adaptive regression
spline models in long term prediction of river water pollution.
Journal of Hydrology, 534, 104–112.
Kohavi, R., & John, G. H. (1997). Wrappers for feature subset
selection. Artificial Intelligence, 97(1–2), 273–324.
Lima, C. A., Coelho, A. L., & Eisencraft, M. (2010). Tackling
EEG signal classification with least squares support vector
machines: A sensitivity analysis study. Computers in Biology
and Medicine, 40(8), 705–714.
Liu, H. (2017). Principles and applications of well-logging.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53383-3.
Liu, J., Liu, X., Liu, C., Le, B. T., & Xiao, D. (2019). Random
search enhancement of incremental regularized multiple
hidden layers ELM. IEEE Access, 7, 36866–36878.
Liu, J., Liu, X., & Le, B. T. (2019b). Rolling force prediction of
hot rolling based on GA-MELM. Complexity, 2019. https://
www.hindawi.com/journals/complexity/2019/3476521/.
Lyons, W. C., & Plisga, G. J. (2011). Standard handbook of pet-
roleum and natural gas engineering. Elsevier.
Maimon, O., & Rokach, L. (2009). Introduction to knowledge
discovery and data mining. In Data mining and knowledge
discovery handbook (pp. 1–15): Springer. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-0-387-09823-4_1.
Mohammadian, N., & Ghorbani, H. (2015). An investigation on
chemical formation damage in Iranian reservoir by focus on
mineralogy role in shale swelling potential in Pabdeh and
Gurpi formations. Advances in Environmental Biology, 9(4),
161–166.
Mohamadian, N., Ghorbani, H., Wood, D. A., & Hormozi, H. K.
(2018). Rheological and filtration characteristics of drilling
fluids enhanced by nanoparticles with selected additives: An
experimental study. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2(3),
228–236.
Mohamadian, N., Ghorbani, H., Wood, D. A., & Khoshmardan,
M. A. (2019). A hybrid nanocomposite of poly (styrene-me-
thyl methacrylate-acrylic acid)/clay as a novel rheology-im-
M. Farsi et al.
provement additive for drilling fluids. Journal of Polymer
Research, 26(2), 33.
Mohamadian, N., Ghorbani, H., Wood, D. A., Mehrad, M., Da-
voodi, S., Rashidi, S., & Shahvand, A. K. (2021). A geome-
chanical approach to casing collapse prediction in oil and gas
wells aided by machine learning. Journal of Petroleum Sci-
ence and Engineering, 196, 107811.
Mustafa, M., Rezaur, R., Rahardjo, H., & Isa, M. (2012). Pre-
diction of pore-water pressure using radial basis function
neural network. Engineering Geology, 135, 40–47.
Osborne, M. J., & Swarbrick, R. E. (1997). Mechanisms for gen-
erating overpressure in sedimentary basins: A reevaluation.
AAPG Bulletin, 81(6), 1023–1041.
Polito, C. P., Green, R. A., & Lee, J. (2008). Pore pressure gen-
eration models for sands and silty soils subjected to cyclic
loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 134(10), 1490–1500.
Ranaee, E., Ghorbani, H., Keshavarzian, S., Ghazaeipour Abar-
ghoei, P., Riva, M., Inzoli, F., & Guadagnini, A. (2021).
Analysis of the performance of a crude-oil desalting system
based on historical data. Fuel. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.
2020.120046.
Rashidi, S., Mohamadian, N., Ghorbani, H., Wood, D. A., Shah-
bazi, K., & Ahmadi Alvar, M. (2020). Shear modulus pre-
diction of embedded pressurize salt layers and pinpointing
zones at risk of casing collapse in oil and gas wells. Journal of
Applied Geophysics, 104205.
Rashidi, S., Mehrad, M., Ghorbani, H., Wood, D. A., Mohama-
dian, N., Moghadasi, J., & Davoodi, S. (2021). Determination
of bubble point pressure and oil formation volume factor of
crude oils applying multiple hidden layers extreme learning
machine algorithms. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.108425.
Rehm, B., Schubert, J., Haghshenas, A., Paknejad, A. S., &
Hughes, J. (2013). Managed pressure drilling. Elsevier.
Rubin, Y., & Hubbard, S. (2005). Hydrogeophysics, water science
and technology library. Springer.
Satter, A., & Iqbal, G. M. (2015). Reservoir engineering: The
fundamentals, simulation, and management of conventional
and unconventional recoveries. Gulf Professional Publishing.
Shi, Y., & Wang, C. Y. (1986). Pore pressure generation in sedi-
mentary basins: Overloading versus aquathermal. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 91(B2), 2153–2162.
Simon, D. (2013). Evolutionary optimization algorithms. Wiley.
Suykens, J. A., & Vandewalle, J. (1999). Least squares support
vector machine classifiers. Neural Processing Letters, 9(3),
293–300.
Swarbrick, R. E. (2001). Challenges of porosity-based pore pres-
sure prediction. Paper presented at the 63rd EAGE confer-
ence & exhibition. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609-pdb.15.
O-25.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., & Mesri, G. (1996). Soil mechanics in
engineering practice (3rd edn.). John Wiley & Sons.
Vapnik, V. (2013). The nature of statistical learning theory.
Springer.
Wahab, M. N. A., Nefti-Meziani, S., & Atyabi, A. (2015). A
comprehensive review of swarm optimization algorithms.
PLoS ONE, 10(5), 1–36.
Wang, S.-J., Chen, H.-L., Yan, W.-J., Chen, Y.-H., & Fu, X.
(2014). Face recognition and micro-expression recognition
based on discriminant tensor subspace analysis plus extreme
learning machine. Neural Processing Letters, 39(1), 25–43.
Xiao, D., Li, B., & Mao, Y. (2017). A multiple hidden layers
extreme learning machine method and its application.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2017. https://www.h
indawi.com/journals/mpe/2017/4670187/.
Yang, X.-S., & Papa, J. P. (2016). Bio-inspired computation and
applications in image processing. Academic Press.
Predicting Formation Pore-Pressure from Well-Log Data
Yeom, C.-U., & Kwak, K.-C. (2017). Short-term electricity-
load forecasting using a TSK-based extreme learning
machine with knowledge representation. Energies, 10(10),
1613.
Yoshida, C., Ikeda, S., & Eaton, B. A. (1996). An investigative
study of recent technologies used for prediction, detection,
and evaluation of abnormal formation pressure and fracture
pressure in North and South America. Paper presented at the
SPE/IADC Asia Pacific Drilling Technology. https://doi.org/h
ttps://doi.org/10.2118/36381-MS.
Yu, H., Chen, G., & Gu, H. (2020). A machine learning
methodology for multivariate pore-pressure prediction.
Computers & Geosciences, 143, 104548.
Yuan, X., Chen, C., Yuan, Y., Huang, Y., & Tan, Q. (2015). Short-
term wind power prediction based on LSSVM–GSA model.
Energy Conversion and Management, 101, 393–401.