AccScience Publishing / JSE / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/JSE026300145
Cite this article
3
Download
87
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Intelligent formation pore-pressure prediction via feature optimization and cascaded transfer learning

Xiao-Xiao Xu1,2 Bing Zhang1* Jia-Liang Xu1 Bo Yu3 Fu-Ying Xu1,2
Show Less
1 Sanya Offshore Oil & Gas Research Institute, Northeast Petroleum University, Sanya, Hainan , China
2 State Key Laboratory of Continental Shale Oil, Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing, Heilongjiang , China
3 Department of Seismic Data Processing, School of Earth Sciences, Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing, Heilongjiang , China
Received: 20 July 2026 | Revised: 27 August 2026 | Accepted: 1 September 2026 | Published online: 14 September 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

Traditional pore-pressure prediction relies heavily on empirical formulas and subjective judgment, whereas existing machine learning models exhibit limited generalization across regions and overpressure mechanisms. This study proposes an intelligent prediction method integrating feature optimization with cascaded domain-adaptive transfer learning to improve the generalizability of pore-pressure prediction. A regional dataset was first constructed from well-logging data of 14 exploratory wells in an offshore area. The continuous pore-pressure profiles used as regression targets were derived using conventional pore-pressure evaluation methods and independently assessed against available formation-pressure measurements, rather than being treated as direct pressure measurements at every depth. Hydrostatic pressure was introduced as a vertical physical constraint, and a deviation feature based on an independently constructed, target-well-excluded regional reference velocity curve was developed to reduce reliance on manually defined normal compaction trends, thereby improving inter-well feature comparability and physical interpretability. To mitigate physical inconsistencies and data distribution shifts caused by differences in overpressure mechanisms, including hydrocarbon-generation-related unloading and undercompaction, a cascaded domain-adaptation model combining canonical correlation analysis and transfer component analysis was established. This model adopts a strategy of semantic alignment followed by distribution adaptation, thereby reducing the maximum mean discrepancy between the source and target domains. Validation was conducted using blocked-depth validation, same-mechanism whole-well validation, and multiple cross-mechanism source–target transfer experiments, together with repeated perturbation-based uncertainty analysis. Results show that the proposed features and transfer-learning model improved prediction performance and physical interpretability under the tested conditions. The proposed method demonstrates potential for cross-well pore-pressure prediction under the tested multi-mechanism conditions within the study area.

Keywords
Pore-pressure prediction
Transfer learning
Well logging
XGBoost
Domain adaptation
Funding
This research was supported by the Science and Technology Program of Sanya Yazhou Bay Science and Technology City (Grant Nos. SKJC-JYRC-2025-03 and SKJC-JYRC-2024-05), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 42274169 and 42274170), the Hainan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 426QN0662), and the Scientific Research Project of Higher Education Institutions of Hainan Province (Grant Nos. Hnky2025-102 and Hnjg2026-310).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
  1. Zhang J. Pore pressure prediction from well logs: methods, modifications, and new approaches. Earth Sci Rev. 2011;108(1-2):50-63. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.06.001
  2. Dutta NC. Geopressure prediction using seismic data: current status and the road ahead. Geophysics. 2002;67(6):2012-2041. doi: 10.1190/1.1527101
  3. Athy LF. Density, porosity, and compaction of sedimentary rocks. AAPG Bull. 1930;14(1):1-24. doi: 10.1306/3D93289E-16B1-11D7-8645000102C1865D
  4. Hubbert MK, Rubey WW. Role of fluid pressure in mechanics of overthrust faulting: I. Mechanics of fluid-filled porous solids and its application to overthrust faulting. Geol Soc Am Bull. 1959;70(2):115-166. doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1959)70[115:ROFPIM]2.0.CO;2
  5. Hottmann CE, Johnson RK. Estimation of formation pressures from log-derived shale properties. J Pet Technol. 1965;17(6):717-722. doi: 10.2118/1110-PA
  6. Foster JB, Whalen HE. Estimation of formation pressures from electrical surveys—offshore Louisiana. J Pet Technol. 1966;18(2):165-171. doi: 10.2118/1200-PA
  7. Eaton BA. The effect of overburden stress on geopressure prediction from well logs. J Pet Technol. 1972;24(8):929-934. doi: 10.2118/3719-PA
  8. Bowers GL. Pore pressure estimation from velocity data: accounting for overpressure mechanisms besides undercompaction. SPE Drill Complet. 1995;10(2):89-95. doi: 10.2118/27488-PA
  9. Osborne MJ, Swarbrick RE. Mechanisms for generating overpressure in sedimentary basins: a reevaluation. AAPG Bull. 1997;81(6):1023-1041. doi: 10.1306/522B49C9-1727-11D7-8645000102C1865D
  10. Yardley GS, Swarbrick RE. Lateral transfer: a source of additional overpressure? Mar Pet Geol. 2000;17(4):523-537. doi: 10.1016/S0264-8172(00)00007-6
  11. Tingay MRP, Hillis RR, Swarbrick RE, Morley CK, Damit AR. Origin of overpressure and pore-pressure prediction in the Baram province, Brunei. AAPG Bull. 2009;93(1):51-74. doi: 10.1306/08080808016
  12. Zhang J. Effective stress, porosity, velocity and abnormal pore pressure prediction accounting for compaction disequilibrium and unloading. Mar Pet Geol. 2013;45:2-11. doi: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2013.04.007
  13. Wyllie MRJ, Gregory AR, Gardner LW. Elastic wave velocities in heterogeneous and porous media. Geophysics. 1956;21(1):41-70. doi: 10.1190/1.1438217
  14. Gardner GHF, Gardner LW, Gregory AR. Formation velocity and density—the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics. 1974;39(6):770-780. doi: 10.1190/1.1440465
  15. Castagna JP, Batzle ML, Eastwood RL. Relationships between compressional-wave and shear-wave velocities in clastic silicate rocks. Geophysics. 1985;50(4):571-581. doi: 10.1190/1.1441933
  16. Han DH, Nur A, Morgan D. Effects of porosity and clay content on wave velocities in sandstones. Geophysics. 1986;51(11):2093-2107. doi: 10.1190/1.1442062
  17. Xu S, White RE. A new velocity model for clay-sand mixtures. Geophys Prospect. 1995;43(1):91-118. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1995.tb00126.x
  18. Bosch M, Mukerji T, Gonzalez EF. Seismic inversion for reservoir properties combining statistical rock physics and geostatistics: a review. Geophysics. 2010;75(5):75A165-75A176. doi: 10.1190/1.3478209
  19. Grana D, Azevedo L, de Figueiredo L, Connolly P, Mukerji T. Probabilistic inversion of seismic data for reservoir petrophysical characterization: review and examples. Geophysics. 2022;87(5):M199-M216. doi: 10.1190/geo2021-0776.1
  20. Yu B, Shi Y, Tian Y, et al. Anisotropic Bayesian linearized stochastic seismic inversion with multi-parameter decoupling. J Geophys Eng. 2024;21(3):961-980. doi: 10.1093/jge/gxae049
  21. Liu L, Shen G, Wang Z, Yang H, Han H, Cheng Y. Abnormal formation velocities and applications to pore pressure prediction. J Appl Geophys. 2018;153:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2018.02.013
  22. Wang H, Ma J, Li L. Pore pressure prediction based on rock physics theory and its application in seismic inversion. J Appl Geophys. 2024;229:105494. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2024.105494
  23. Radwan AE, Wood DA, Radwan AA. Machine learning and data-driven prediction of pore pressure from geophysical logs: a case study for the Mangahewa gas field, New Zealand. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. 2022;14(6):1799-1809. doi: 10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.01.012
  24. Al-Fakih A, Kaka SI, Koeshidayatullah AI. Reservoir property prediction in the North Sea using machine learning. IEEE Access. 2023;11:140148-140160. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3336623
  25. Al-Fakih A, Ibrahim AF, Elkatatny S, Abdulraheem A. Estimating electrical resistivity from logging data for oil wells using machine learning. J Pet Explor Prod Technol. 2023;13(6):1453-1461. doi: 10.1007/s13202-023-01617-2
  26. Al-Fakih A, Li K. Estimation of bottom-hole temperature based on machine/deep learning. In: Proceedings of the 2021 International Petroleum and Petrochemical Technology Conference. Singapore: Springer; 2022:340-353. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-9427-1_33
  27. Al-Fakih A, Koeshidayatullah A, Mukerji T, Kaka SI. Enhanced anomaly detection in well log data through the application of ensemble GANs. Appl Comput Geosci. 2026;29:100316. doi: 10.1016/j.acags.2025.100316
  28. Koeshidayatullah A, Al-Fakih A, Kaka SI. Toward basin-agnostic well log imputation and anomaly detection via a pre-trained time-series foundation model. Energy Geosci. 2026;7(2):100536. doi: 10.1016/j.engeos.2026.100536
  29. Xu Y, Yang L, Xu J, et al. Prediction method for formation pore pressure based on transfer learning. Geoenergy Sci Eng. 2024;236:212747. doi: 10.1016/j.geoen.2024.212747
  30. Wang ZF, Cao H, Yang ZF, Xu HQ, Yang MQ, Zhao YS. Transfer learning seismic impedance inversion method based on temporal convolutional networks. J Seism Explor. 2022;31(4):391-405.
  31. Zhang Y, Singh S, Thanoon D, Devarakota P, Jin L, Tsvankin I. Physics-guided unsupervised deep-learning seismic inversion with uncertainty quantification. J Seism Explor. 2023;32(3):257-270.
  32. Li ZX, Ma JH, Qi Z, Zhang LW, Xie F, Yang JL. Accelerating the U-Net-based adaptive subtraction with transfer learning for removing seismic multiples in field data. J Seism Explor. 2023;32(4):373-384.
  33. Tian L, Sun S, Li Q, Shi J. Data-driven high-resolution gas-bearing prediction in tight sandstones: a case study from block L, eastern Ordos Basin. J Seism Explor. 2025;34(3):13-24. doi: 10.36922/JSE025320053
  34. Guo Q, Zhao X, Ba J, Luo C. Porosity prediction with Bi-LSTM network for deep methane reservoirs. J Seism Explor. 2025;34(6):29-44. doi: 10.36922/JSE025410087
  35. Li F, Zhang M, Liang Q, et al. A two-branch convolutional neural network for pre-stack elastic parameter inversion of coal-bearing gas reservoirs. J Seism Explor. 2026;35(2):271-289. doi: 10.36922/JSE025390076
  36. Hardoon DR, Szedmak S, Shawe-Taylor J. Canonical correlation analysis: an overview with application to learning methods. Neural Comput. 2004;16(12):2639-2664. doi: 10.1162/0899766042321814
  37. Pan SJ, Yang Q. A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng. 2010;22(10):1345-1359. doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2009.191
  38. Zhuang F, Qi Z, Duan K, et al. A comprehensive survey on transfer learning. Proc IEEE. 2021;109(1):43-76. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2020.3004555
  39. Pan SJ, Tsang IW, Kwok JT, Yang Q. Domain adaptation via transfer component analysis. IEEE Trans Neural Netw. 2011;22(2):199-210. doi: 10.1109/TNN.2010.2091281
  40. Bentéjac C, Csörgő A, Martínez-Muñoz G. A comparative analysis of gradient boosting algorithms. Artif Intell Rev. 2021;54(3):1937-1967. doi: 10.1007/s10462-020-09896-5
  41. Lundberg SM, Erion G, Chen H, et al. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nat Mach Intell. 2020;2(1):56-67. doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9
Share
Back to top
Journal of Seismic Exploration, Print ISSN: 0963-0651, Published by AccScience Publishing