论文标题
Man vs Machine:一项对GeoSteering决策技能的实验研究
Man vs machine: an experimental study of geosteering decision skills
论文作者
论文摘要
随着钻井过程中实时数据量的稳定增长,运营决策既变得更加知情又更加复杂。因此,由于没有人脑能够解释和整合数据中所有与决策相关的信息,因此采用高级算法不仅需要用于数据解释,而且还需要决策优化本身。但是,自动决策的优势很难量化。 本文的主要贡献是一个实验,我们将GeoSteering专家的决策技能与在完全控制的合成环境中的自动决策支持系统的决策技能进行比较。该系统的实施(以下称为DSS-1)在我们的早期工作中提出[Alyaev等。 “多目标对固定的决策支持系统。”石油科学与工程杂志183(2019)]。在当前的研究中,我们开发了一个易于使用的基于网络的平台,可以在2D地质模型中可视化和更新不确定性。该平台具有用户和应用程序接口(GUI和API),使我们能够将人类参与者和DSS-1置于类似的环境和条件中。 在三个实验回合中比较29名地球科学家与DSS-1的结果表明,自动算法的表现优于28名参与者。更重要的是,没有专家在三轮比赛中不止一次击败DSS-1,从而使其成为参与者中最佳的比较评分。 通过设计DSS-1的性能始终如一,即确保相同的问题设置可以产生相同的决策。该研究表明,只有两名专家能够在公差内证明部分一致性,但得分较低。
With the steady growth of the amount of real-time data while drilling, operational decision-making is becoming both better informed and more complex. Therefore, as no human brain has the capacity to interpret and integrate all decision-relevant information from the data, the adoption of advanced algorithms is required not only for data interpretation but also for decision optimization itself. However, the advantages of the automatic decision-making are hard to quantify. The main contribution of this paper is an experiment in which we compare the decision skills of geosteering experts with those of an automatic decision support system in a fully controlled synthetic environment. The implementation of the system, hereafter called DSS-1, is presented in our earlier work [Alyaev et al. "A decision support system for multi-target geosteering." Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 183 (2019)]. For the current study we have developed an easy-to-use web-based platform which can visualize and update uncertainties in a 2D geological model. The platform has both user and application interfaces (GUI and API) allowing us to put human participants and DSS-1 into a similar environment and conditions. The results of comparing 29 geoscientists with DSS-1 over three experimental rounds showed that the automatic algorithm outperformed 28 participants. What's more, no expert has beaten DSS-1 more than once over the three rounds, giving it the best comparative rating among the participants. By design DSS-1 performs consistently, that is, identical problem setup is guaranteed to yield identical decisions. The study showed that only two experts managed to demonstrate partial consistency within a tolerance but ended up with much lower scores.