-
KNIFE: Distilling Reasoning Knowledge From Free-Text Rationales
Authors:
Aaron Chan,
Zhiyuan Zeng,
Wyatt Lake,
Brihi Joshi,
Hanjie Chen,
Xiang Ren
Abstract:
Language models (LMs) have yielded impressive results on many language reasoning tasks, but their unexpected errors raise doubts about their reasoning abilities. In light of this, there is growing interest in finetuning/prompting LMs with both task instances and their associated free-text rationales (FTRs), which explain the correct reasoning process for predicting the correct task output (i.e., h…
▽ More
Language models (LMs) have yielded impressive results on many language reasoning tasks, but their unexpected errors raise doubts about their reasoning abilities. In light of this, there is growing interest in finetuning/prompting LMs with both task instances and their associated free-text rationales (FTRs), which explain the correct reasoning process for predicting the correct task output (i.e., how to be "right for the right reasons"). However, existing finetuning methods fail to improve LM performance, while prompting needs prohibitively large (i.e., >50B) LMs to work well. We propose KNIFE, which shows that reasoning knowledge can be effectively distilled from FTRs into a small (i.e., <1B) LM and improve the LM's performance. First, KNIFE finetunes a teacher LM (given task input and FTR) to predict the task output, transferring reasoning knowledge from the FTRs to the teacher's hidden states. Second, KNIFE finetunes a student LM (given task input only) such that its hidden states are aligned with the teacher's. Thus, the student is endowed with reasoning knowledge but can be used for inference without direct FTR input. On two question-answering datasets, KNIFE outperforms various finetuning and prompting baselines in fully-supervised and low-resource settings. Also, we observe that FTR quality is crucial to KNIFE's performance.
△ Less
Submitted 21 May, 2023; v1 submitted 19 December, 2022;
originally announced December 2022.
-
Estimating oil recovery factor using machine learning: Applications of XGBoost classification
Authors:
Alireza Roustazadeh,
Behzad Ghanbarian,
Frank Male,
Mohammad B. Shadmand,
Vahid Taslimitehrani,
Larry W. Lake
Abstract:
In petroleum engineering, it is essential to determine the ultimate recovery factor, RF, particularly before exploitation and exploration. However, accurately estimating requires data that is not necessarily available or measured at early stages of reservoir development. We, therefore, applied machine learning (ML), using readily available features, to estimate oil RF for ten classes defined in th…
▽ More
In petroleum engineering, it is essential to determine the ultimate recovery factor, RF, particularly before exploitation and exploration. However, accurately estimating requires data that is not necessarily available or measured at early stages of reservoir development. We, therefore, applied machine learning (ML), using readily available features, to estimate oil RF for ten classes defined in this study. To construct the ML models, we applied the XGBoost classification algorithm. Classification was chosen because recovery factor is bounded from 0 to 1, much like probability. Three databases were merged, leaving us with four different combinations to first train and test the ML models and then further evaluate them using an independent database including unseen data. The cross-validation method with ten folds was applied on the training datasets to assess the effectiveness of the models. To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the models, the accuracy, neighborhood accuracy, and macro averaged f1 score were determined. Overall, results showed that the XGBoost classification algorithm could estimate the RF class with reasonable accuracies as high as 0.49 in the training datasets, 0.34 in the testing datasets and 0.2 in the independent databases used. We found that the reliability of the XGBoost model depended on the data in the training dataset meaning that the ML models were database dependent. The feature importance analysis and the SHAP approach showed that the most important features were reserves and reservoir area and thickness.
△ Less
Submitted 28 October, 2022;
originally announced October 2022.
-
Estimating oil and gas recovery factors via machine learning: Database-dependent accuracy and reliability
Authors:
Alireza Roustazadeh,
Behzad Ghanbarian,
Mohammad B. Shadmand,
Vahid Taslimitehrani,
Larry W. Lake
Abstract:
With recent advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning (ML) approaches have become an attractive tool in petroleum engineering, particularly for reservoir characterizations. A key reservoir property is hydrocarbon recovery factor (RF) whose accurate estimation would provide decisive insights to drilling and production strategies. Therefore, this study aims to estimate the hydrocarbon RF…
▽ More
With recent advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning (ML) approaches have become an attractive tool in petroleum engineering, particularly for reservoir characterizations. A key reservoir property is hydrocarbon recovery factor (RF) whose accurate estimation would provide decisive insights to drilling and production strategies. Therefore, this study aims to estimate the hydrocarbon RF for exploration from various reservoir characteristics, such as porosity, permeability, pressure, and water saturation via the ML. We applied three regression-based models including the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), support vector machine (SVM), and stepwise multiple linear regression (MLR) and various combinations of three databases to construct ML models and estimate the oil and/or gas RF. Using two databases and the cross-validation method, we evaluated the performance of the ML models. In each iteration 90 and 10% of the data were respectively used to train and test the models. The third independent database was then used to further assess the constructed models. For both oil and gas RFs, we found that the XGBoost model estimated the RF for the train and test datasets more accurately than the SVM and MLR models. However, the performance of all the models were unsatisfactory for the independent databases. Results demonstrated that the ML algorithms were highly dependent and sensitive to the databases based on which they were trained. Statistical tests revealed that such unsatisfactory performances were because the distributions of input features and target variables in the train datasets were significantly different from those in the independent databases (p-value < 0.05).
△ Less
Submitted 22 October, 2022;
originally announced October 2022.
