Man vs machine: an experimental study of geosteering decision skills
May 18, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Sergey Alyaev, Reidar Brumer Bratvold, Sofija Ivanova, Andrew Holsaeter, Morten Bendiksen
arXiv ID
2005.08916
Category
cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction
Citations
0
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
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.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Human-Computer Interaction
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Identifying Stable Patterns over Time for Emotion Recognition from EEG
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Learning for Sensor-based Human Activity Recognition: Overview, Challenges and Opportunities
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted