Table 3 Different model evaluation results comparison for different reservoir parameters (Well A2).
From: Research on prediction method of well logging reservoir parameters based on Multi-TransFKAN model
Target parameter | Methods | RMSE | MSE | R2 | Adjusted R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PHIF | Our Proposed | 0.052 | 0.003 | 0.975 | 0.925 |
Transformer | 0.127 | 0.016 | 0.942 | 0.826 | |
TCN | 0.268 | 0.072 | 0.884 | 0.739 | |
LSTM | 0.319 | 0.102 | 0.834 | 0.664 | |
GRU | 0.429 | 0.184 | 0.808 | 0.629 | |
VSH | Our Proposed | 0.050 | 0.002 | 0.979 | 0.937 |
Transformer | 0.124 | 0.015 | 0.947 | 0.808 | |
TCN | 0.259 | 0.067 | 0.889 | 0.734 | |
LSTM | 0.309 | 0.095 | 0.843 | 0.661 | |
GRU | 0.417 | 0.174 | 0.817 | 0.612 | |
SW | Our Proposed | 0.061 | 0.004 | 0.973 | 0.919 |
Transformer | 0.132 | 0.017 | 0.94 | 0.82 | |
TCN | 0.267 | 0.071 | 0.881 | 0.74 | |
LSTM | 0.317 | 0.1 | 0.831 | 0.663 | |
GRU | 0.424 | 0.179 | 0.811 | 0.609 |