Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01257-y (0123456789().,-volV)
(0123456789().,-volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

Predicting permeability of tight carbonates using a hybrid machine

learning approach of modified equilibrium optimizer and extreme
learning machine
Navid Kardani2 • Abidhan Bardhan3 • Shubham Gupta4 • Pijush Samui3 • Majidreza Nazem2 •

Yanmei Zhang1 • Annan Zhou2

Received: 9 February 2021 / Accepted: 29 May 2021 / Published online: 5 July 2021
Ó The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
It is a problematic task to perform petro-physical property prediction of carbonate reservoir rocks in most cases, specif-
ically for permeability prediction since a carbonate rock most commonly contains grains of heterogeneous size distribu-
tions. Consequently, the permeability calculation of tight rocks in laboratories is costly and very time-consuming.
Therefore, this study aims to tackle this issue by developing novel hybrid models based on combination of the modified
version of the equilibrium optimizer (EO), i.e., MEO, and two conventional machine learning algorithms, namely extreme
learning machine (ELM) and artificial neural network (ANN). The MEO employs a mutation mechanism in order to avoid
trapping in local optima of EO by increasing the search capabilities. In this study, ELM-MEO and ANN-MEO, novel
metaheuristic ELM-based and ANN-based algorithms, were constructed to predict the permeability of tight carbonates. In
addition, ANN, ELM, RF, RVM and MARS combined with particle swarm optimization and genetic programming
algorithm have a better insight into the performances for preferably predicting the permeability carbonates. The results
illustrate that the proposed ELM-MEO model with R2 = 0.9323, RMSE = 0.0612 and MAE = 0.0442 in training stage and
R2 = 0.8743, RMSE = 0.0806 and MAE = 0.0660 in testing stage, outperformed other ELM-based and ANN-based
metaheuristic models in predicting the permeability of tight carbonates at all levels.

Keywords Equilibrium optimizer  MEO  Metaheuristic optimization  Permeability  Tight carbonates

1 Introduction

The intercalated depositional texture along with post-de-

& Yanmei Zhang positional diagenetic modifications in the base rock leads to
zhangym@cqu.edu.cn numerous carbonate rocks with high complexity and
& Annan Zhou heterogeneity in a wide range of scales. This results in
annan.zhou@rmit.edu.au rocks with variable quality of reservoir and makes evalu-
Shubham Gupta ation a challenging task, particularly for the purpose of
shubham.gupta@ntu.edu.sg reservoir permeability prediction [1–3]. A large number of
1
factors are involved in carbonate petro-physical properties,
College of Aerospace Engineering, Chongqing University,
which are crucial when constructing numerical and con-
Chongqing 400044, China
2
ceptual models of reservoirs [4]. It is a problematic task to
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Discipline, School of
perform petro-physical property prediction of carbonate
Engineering, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
(RMIT), Victoria 3001, Australia reservoir rocks in most cases, specifically for fluid flow and
3 permeability prediction since a carbonate rock most com-
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of
Technology, Patna 800005, India monly contains grains of heterogeneous size distributions.
4 The grain size is not only associated with the pores, pore-
School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore throats and dimensions, but also pore connectivity

123
1240
represented as the cementation exponent m. The grain size
can vary in the depth and sideward directions at large
scales. They also most commonly undergo considerable
changes in a small distance [5].
Permeability (k) is an essential variable to characterize
and manage reservoirs. Although permeability can be
measured on samples of cores in laboratory settings, it
cannot be directly obtained by measuring the downhole. As
it is costly to measure core samples and such samples cover
merely a small portion of reservoir intervals, it is required
to adopt other techniques. As a result, many empirical
models were developed to obtain permeability through
numerous proxy measurements that can commonly be
performed down the hole. Even so, these problems are
extremely complex because of the highly nonlinear stress–
strain relationships, as well as elastoplastic performance
under loading and unloading conditions. Therefore, tradi-
tional empirical equations are insufficient to adequately
describe the mapping relation between rock properties and
permeability (k). The primary aim of this research is to
develop an easier, cheaper, and more effective way to
assess the permeability of extremely tight, heterogeneous
reservoir rocks that would help characterize these reser-
voirs as efficient and reliable technical tools.
Researchers have employed machine learning (ML) for
prediction purposes. The present study does not aim to
review machine learning algorithms (MLAs) and the use of
such algorithms in geophysical problems. MLAs have a
rich literature, and proper reviews of their applications are
available [6–10]. This work incorporates several recent ML
applications for geo/petro-physical purposes. Although ML
can be employed for many possible purposes, advance-
ments have recently included every petro-physical aspect,
such as logging via facies determination, rock characteri-
zation, and key variable determination for the permeability
and volumetrics calculations of reservoirs. Studies
employed integrated deep learning models (DLMs) [11]
and integrated hybrid neural networks (IHNNs) [12] to
substantially enhance total organic carbon (TOC) estimates
and improve shale gas reservoir characterization. Onalo
et al. [13, 14] adopted a nonlinear autoregressive neural
network with exogenous input (NARX) for the estimation
of shear and compressional sonic travel times within well
logs. They predicted actual sonic well logs at adequately
high efficiency. They obtain sonic properties, such as
Poisson’s ratio and sonic porosity. Also, ML was exploited
to find optimal reservoir parameters. For example, Zhu
et al. [15] recently studied the saturation of water within
organic shale reservoirs. They calculated shale petro-
physical parameters via the genetic algorithm (GA) opti-
mization approach. This method requires no electrical
measurements in the form of inputs. Thus, it perfectly suits
organic shale reservoirs. Reservoir fracture
123
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255
characterization is a multi-variable problem that is difficult
to approach. Xue et al. [16] found that the use of GA and
backpropagation neural networks (BPNNs) in combination
could make fracture zone predictions via shallow and deep
electrical logs in the form of inputs. The determination of
facies and petro-physical properties is an evident advantage
of ML techniques. BPNNs and convolutional neural net-
works have been employed for the improvement of total
organic carbon estimates and both volatile and remaining
hydrocarbon calculations within a shale oil reservoir [17].
They have higher performance than conventional tech-
niques in such estimates. Lim and Kim [18] introduced
neural network and fuzzy logic methods for reservoir
permeability and porosity prediction. They demonstrated
that the methods had further development potential. Tang
[19] and Tang et al. [20] adopted probabilistic neural net-
works for the purpose of carbonate reservoir facies clas-
sification and succeeded to some extent. Zhou et al. [21]
integrated diagenesis and a deep autoencoder random for-
est algorithm in order to explore how various diagenesis
states were related to the electrical variables (e.g., m and n)
of tight gas sandstone reservoirs. Zhu et al. [22, 23]
employed a complicated combination of ML and NMR
inputs to reasonably predict tight gas sandstone reservoir
permeability. Their results were found to be comparable to
those of Rashid et al. [3], who adopted conventional pre-
diction methods of permeability.
Many studies attempted to improve conventional ML
performance, e.g., extreme learning machines (ELMs) and
ANN. Despite their higher outcomes than statistical
approaches, traditional MLAs are more prone to local
minima trapping rather than capturing the exact global
minima. This yields undesired outcomes. Hence, to tackle
this problem, studies are employing optimization algo-
rithms for the purpose of updating classical ML parame-
ters, reporting significant findings. This work employs the
Equilibrium Optimizer [24] as a novel metaheuristic opti-
mization algorithm that was recently introduced. The
combination of ELM and EO (ELM-EO) and a combina-
tion of ANN and EO (ANN-EO) are introduced in this
study. As a new metaheuristic optimization algorithm, EO
is rapid and powerful and has a high population-based
performance. According to experimental EO results, it has
higher performance than other well-known approaches
[24], yielding significantly comparable results. Thus, the
present study adopts EO to predict permeability in tight
carbonates.
Like other metaheuristic algorithms, however, EO
encounters a number of limitations. Therefore, the present
work aims to enhance the standard EO. To this end, a
combination of mutation-based searching and EO algo-
rithm is employed for the performance enhancement of
standard EO. Then, a modified EO (MEO) is utilized to
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255
build the ELM-based modified EO (ELM-MEO) and ANN-
based modified EO (ANN-MEO) to estimate tight car-
bonate permeability. Furthermore, the potential of ELM-
MEO, ELM-EO, ANN-MEO, and ANN-EO for general-
ization is compared to the hybridization of particle swarm
optimization (PSO) with ELM and ANN, i.e., ELM-PSO
and ANN-PSO. In addition, to have a better insight of
performances of the hybrid models, four typical ML
models including random forest (RF), genetic program-
ming (GP), multivariate adaptive regression spline
(MARS), and relevance vector machine (RVM) approaches
are also employed on the dataset.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2
covers the methodology of this study including the detailed
description of the applied models and the hybridization
process. The data processing and analysis as well as per-
formance indices are presented in Sect. 3, while Sect. 4
illustrates and compares the obtained results of the applied
models in every possible way. Finally, a summary and
conclusion are provided in Sect. 5.
2 Methodology
2.1 Extreme learning machine (ELM)
An ELM refers to a neural network that serves as an
innovative data-driven instrument. It makes use of a
modern single-layer feed-forward network (SLFN) to
produce a closed-form solution to the output weights once
the weights and biases of the hidden layer have been fixed.
To use an ELM for data modelling, a straightforward three-
stage process is utilized. The stages involve (1) randomly
(and not iteratively) building the biases and weights of the
hidden layer, (2) proceeding the inputs via the parameters
of the hidden layer to generate the output matrix of the
hidden layer, and (3) making output weight estimates
through the inversion of the output matrix of the hidden
layer, in which the generalized Moore–Penrose inverse
matrix is applied, before calculating the response variable
(that is, the solving of some linear equations). To this end,
it is required to randomize the hidden neurons after iden-
tifying their nodes. Typically, trial-and-error is applied to a
cross-validation dataset to identify the hidden neurons. For
real-time executions, ELMs provide a prominent advantage
over other techniques with low rates of convergence, lower
generalizability, local minima problems, iterative tuning,
and data over-fitting [25, 26]. As a result, the quick and
enhanced ELM performance is beneficial in real-time
applications.
1241
2.2 Artificial neural network (ANN)
Structurally inspired by the human brain, ANNs comprises
of simple and small processing units or the so-called arti-
ficial neurons or nodes to be used in computational meth-
ods. This structure has turned ANNs into effective
mathematical tools for different objectives [27, 28],
including function estimation and pattern recognition. An
ANN comprises of three main layers where neurons lie.
Neurons in the input layer are equal input variables in
number and those in the output layer equal output vari-
ables. At least one hidden layer lies between these two
layers. Signal is transmitted through the input layer, hidden
layers function as the computational engine of the network
and the output layer makes predictions based on the input
variables. As the main parameters in an ANN, bias and
weights, respectively, determine the degree of freedom of
the network and relationships between interconnected
neurons of a layer [29–31]. Except for the input nodes,
every node utilizes a nonlinear activation transfer function
to determine its output while providing a set of inputs. The
output determined is then employed as an input for the next
node, and this process continues until a reliable solution to
the original problem is found.
2.3 Metaheuristic optimization algorithms
2.3.1 Equilibrium optimizer (EO)
EO algorithm which is inspired from dynamic mass bal-
ance was first introduced by Faramarzi et al. [24].
According to EO approach, an equation of a mass balance
employs various source and sink mechanisms of a non-
reactive component in a control volume in order to define
its concentration. The equation of mass balance offers the
fundamental mechanics for the preservation of the entering,
leaving and producing mass. Basically, mathematical
model of the EO algorithm is comprised of three main steps
as follows:
1. Initialization
EO employs a set of particles in this step, in which each
particle reflects the vector of concentration that includes
the solution for the optimization problem. The preliminary
vector concentrations are developed at random in the
search space as below:
vi ¼ cmin þ ðcmax  cmin Þ  r
~ i ¼ 0; 1; 2; . . .; n ð1Þ
where the particle i concentration vector is shown by ~ vi ,
while lower and upper bound of dimensions are determined
by cmin and cmax , respectively. Parameter n indicates the
number of particles and r is a randomly assigned number in
the range of [0, 1].
123
1242
2. Equilibrium pool and candidates
(Ceq ). There is a goal for each of the meta-heuristic
algorithms that attempt to accomplish it based on its
design. For instance, the objective in artificial bee colony
(ABC) algorithm is to find the food source and in whale
optimization algorithm (WOA) is to find the prey. Within
the same concept, the objective of the EO algorithm is to
find the equilibrium state of the system. EO could be
heading to the near-optimal solution of the optimization
problem as it enters the equilibrium state. EO is not aware
of the concentration level in which the equilibrium state
will be achieved. Therefore, the best four particles con-
tained in the population as well as the other particle that
includes the average of the best four particles, are specified
by the EO as candidates. EO is supported by these five
candidates in exploitation and exploration processes.
Diversity potential of the EO is increased by first four
candidates and 5th candidate enhances the exploitation of
the EO. Such five candidates, namely equilibrium pool, are
stored in a vector:
n o
~eq:pool ¼ C
C ~eqð1Þ ; C
~eqð2Þ ; C
~eqð3Þ ; C
~eqð4Þ ; C
~eqðaveÞ ð2Þ
Concentration of each particle in each iteration is
updated using randomly selected candidates with equal
probability. To give an example, concentration of the first
particle may be updated on the basis of ~
C eqð2Þ and ~
C eqðaveÞ
in the first and second iteration. Once the optimization
process is completed, each particle must undergo the
updating cycle, with all candidate solutions receiving
nearly the same number of updates for each particle.
3. Updating the concentration using exponential rate
(F) and generation rate (G).The term of exponential rate
(F) allows EO to combine intensification and diversifica-
tion in a realistic manner. As the turnover rate in a real
control volume will differ over time, k should be a random
vector in the range of [0, 1],
! !
F ¼ e k ðtt0 Þ ð3Þ
where t is the time which is the function of iteration (IterÞ
and can be formulated as below:
~ 
 ða2 MaxIter iterÞ
Iter
t ¼ 1 ð4Þ
Max iter
where maximum number of iterations and current iteration
are shown as Max iter and Iter, respectively, and a2 stands
for a constant value for managing the exploitation poten-
tial. To ensure convergence through decreasing the search
speed coupled with enhancing the algorithm’s ability to
explore and exploit, below formulation is also considered:
123
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255
  ! 
! 1  
t 0 ¼ ! ln a1 sign !r  0:5 1  e k t þt ð5Þ
k
where a1 is the counterpart of a2 for exploration process,
higher a1 =a2 results in better exploration/ exploitation and
as a consequence lower exploitation/ exploration. Param-
eter ! r is a random vector in the range of [0, 1] and
 
sign ! r  0:5 impacts the exploitation and exploration
directions. Another term used in the EO algorithm to
enhance the exploitation process is the generation rate (G).
For example, a multipurpose model which describes gen-
eration rates as a process of exponential decay in the first
order is described as:
! ! !
G ¼ G 0 e k ðtt0 Þ ð6Þ
where decay constant and initial value of G are shown by k
and G0 . In this study, it is assumed that k is equal to k, in
order to reduce the number of random variables and also
have a more symmetric and structured pattern of searching.
This study also uses previously derived exponential term.
Hence, following is the final set of equations for G:
! ! ! !!
G ¼ G 0 e k ðtt0 Þ ¼ G 0 F ð7Þ
! ! ! ! !
G 0 ¼ GCP C eq  k C ð8Þ
where

! 0:5r1 r2  GP
GCP ¼ f ð xÞ ¼ ð9Þ
0 r2 \GP
where r1 and r2 denote the random numbers in the range of
[0,1], GCP. Vector is developed by repeating that very
same value resulting from Eq. 9. In this equation, GCP is
identified as the Control Parameter of the Generation Rate,
which involves the possibility to contribute to the updating
process by generation term. While the generation proba-
bility (GP) is another term to determine the probability of
the contribution which indicates the number of particles
use generation term to update their states. Following
equation illustrates the updating rule of EO:
G 
~¼C
C ~eq þ ~ ~eq  ~
CC Fþ 1~
F ð10Þ
~
kV
where F is defined in Eq. 13, and V is considered as unit.
2.3.2 Modified equilibrium optimizer (MEO)
The MEO algorithm proposed by Gupta et al. [32] per-
forms the division of the population and further recon-
struction differently to continue the process of search based
on two different strategies incorporated with the concept of
population division and its reconstruction. In MEO, the
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255
candidate solution population that was derived after the EO
procedure update undergoes sorting based on the fitness of
the solutions. Then, the population is divided into three
equal parts. The first part of candidate solution having
better fitness is preserved for next search process. The
remaining portion of the new population involves the
candidates that are produced via mutation applied to the
top N3 candidates and those that are produced below applied
to the top N3 population candidates.
0 techniques, i.e., RF, RVM, MARS, and GP can be referred
C i ¼ C i :ð1 þ GaussianðhÞÞ ð11Þ
  !
!itþ1 !it !it ! !
[42–46] for MARS, and [47–49] for GP.
C i ¼ C eqð1Þ  C m  r 3 ½ C min þ r 4 C max  C min 
ð12Þ
~it 1X N
~ it
Cm ¼ C ð13Þ
N i¼1 i
where r 3 and r 4 are random variables ranging from 0 to 1.
A movement length of (which refers to the difference
between Cmax and Cmin ) with random scaling (r 4 ) is added
to Cmin . GaussianðhÞ represents the Gaussian distributed
random vector. It is assumed that the Gaussian mutation-
produced candidate performs solution space exploration in
the vicinity of the top one-third of the population candi-
dates in terms of fitness. Hence, such a mutation procedure
helps explore search areas in the vicinity of the elite
solution space regions. Mutation also helps to deal with
sub-optimal search traps. Likewise, exploration in the
vicinity of the elite candidates that have been derived by
Eq. (12) is helpful in the formation of the one-third of the
population. Such exploration is also helpful in convergence
rate enhancement and enables searching in the elite areas.
As a result, the proposed approach utilizes these concepts
for exploring a large area within the search space while
enhancing candidate solution diversity in the search. Fur-
ther details can be referred from the studies of Gupta et al.
[32]. Other optimization such as Bayesian type can be
referred to Zhang et al. [33].
2.3.3 Particle swarm optimization (PSO)
Kennedy and Eberhart [34] proposed PSO as a swarm-
grounded metaheuristic approach. Bird and fish schooling
and flocking patterns mainly inspired PSO, and the primary
objective is to identify solutions of global optimality within
a multidimensional space. At the beginning of PSO, ran-
dom particle positions and velocities are initialized. Then,
each of the particles undergoes location updating to find the
best position within the multidimensional space on the
ground of the velocity, personal best position, and global
best position. Nonetheless, the best position of all the
particles is treated to be the global best position, while the
1243
best position of an individual particle is viewed to be the
personal best location. The position updating of a particle
is performed based on the personal best position and the
global best position direction. At the same time, the
velocity updating of a particle is grounded on the differ-
ence between personal and global best locations. The
particles obtain convergence in the vicinity of the optimal
solution by an exploitation–exploration mixture.
The theoretical details of other employed soft computing
from the literature; [35–38] for RF, [39–41] for RVM,
2.4 Hybridization process
This work adopted EO as a newly developed metaheuristic
algorithm for ANN and ELM learning parameter opti-
mization to perform tight carbonate permeability predic-
tion. The learning parameters of an ANN include input
weights, hidden neuron biases, output weights, and output
bias, whereas those of an ELM involve input weights,
hidden biases, and output weights. Once the ANN and
ELM have been initialized, EO is employed for the opti-
mization of learning parameters—that is, the biases and
weights. In this respect, the EO algorithm is set up prior to
ML learning parameter optimization. This includes the
optimization of the population size, maximum iteration
count, lower and upper bounds, and the hidden layer neu-
ron count of the ELM and ANN. Then, EO optimizes the
ANN and ELM biases and weights. The same process as
that of ANN-EO and ELM-EO models is performed in
ANN-MEO and ELM-MEO. The optimized learning
parameter values are found by the smallest root mean
square error (RMSE). Even though the parameters, such as
the hidden neuron count, population size, maximum itera-
tion count and lower and upper bounds, remain unchanged,
the optimized learning parameter values change in EO and
MEO. Furthermore, it is worth noting that these parameters
have a significant impact on optimization. Thus, it is nec-
essary to appropriately tune such parameters in the
hybridization procedure. Fig. 1 depicts the hybridization
procedure of ELM-based and ANN-based models. As can
be seen, the ELM-based and ANN-based models devel-
opment steps are represented.
3 Data processing and performance metrics
The present work proposes ELM-PSO, ELM-EO, and
ELM-MEO as ELM-based hybrid metaheuristic approa-
ches and ANN-PSO, ANN-EO, and ANN-MEO as ANN-
base hybrid metaheuristic approaches. The min–max
method is applied to normalize the entire dataset. In soft
123
1244 Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255

Fig. 1. Flow chart showing the methodological steps of the hybridization process

computing, data normalization as a pre-processing stage of used as input variables, while permeability k (mD) is used
solving problems is viewed as the most essential stage. In as a dependent variable to accomplish this goal. Because of
general, data are normalized for the dimensional effect the physical nature of the tight carbonates, the helium
nullification of variables. Therefore, during pre-processing, porosity method was chosen to calculate Ø instead of the
the data undergo normalization in an upper limit (1) and water saturation porosity method. Additionally, for each
lower limit (0)-defined range by the ‘min-max’ method. case, the fluid permeability method and mercury injection
Next, the main dataset which is collected from experiments capillary pressure measurements were used to assess the
[50, 51] is classified into a training subset and a testing related variable. Table 1 lists the summary of the dataset
subset. To this end, 75% (98 observations) of the data are
randomly used as the training data, whereas the remaining
25% (32 observations) of the data is employed as the Table 1 Statistical summary of the input and output variables
testing data. Then, the training data is utilized for model Particulars Ø (-) F (-) Dpt (m) k (mD)
training, whereas the testing data are utilized for model
Mean 0.1790 62.2692 2.8844e-08 0.005244
validation. According to [50], the Portland Formation,
Standard deviation 0.0370 29.5644 4.0637e-08 0.020163
located at 50°330 1000 N 02°260 2500 W in southern England,
Minimum 0.1070 17.0000 3.9200e-10 0.000002
provided the core plugs. The aim of this research is to
25% 0.1512 40.0000 6.5800e-09 0.000032
estimate the permeability of tight carbonates using a small
number of independent parameters that can be obtained 50% 0.1730 55.0000 1.3650e-08 0.000213
inexpensively and conveniently from standard core plug 75% 0.2150 74.7500 3.2500e-08 0.001227
measurements. Three properties, porosity Ø, formation Maximum 0.2650 200.0000 2.2800e-07 0.185000
resistivity factor F, and pore throat diameter Dpt (m), are

123
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255 1245

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
used in this study, while Fig. 2 presents the correlation 1 Xn
between the input variables and permeability of tight RMSE ¼ i¼1 i
ðy  ybi Þ2 ð30Þ
n
carbonates.
Pn yi by i
To perform model performance evaluation, the perfor- i¼1 yi  yi
mance indexes of Adj:R2 , R2 ,PI, MAE, RMSE and WMAPE ¼ Pn ð31Þ
i¼1 yi
WMAPE are measured and compared in all possible
aspects. These indexes are mathematically shown as: where n stands for the observation count, p is the number of
input parameters, yi and yˆi are the real and modelled value
ðn  1Þ
Adj:R2 ¼ 1  ð1  R2 Þ ð26Þ i of permeability (i.e., the output), and ymean represents the
ðn  p  1Þ
mean input. To obtain a desirable prediction model, it is
Pn 2 Pn
2 i¼1 ðyi  ymean Þ  bi Þ2
i¼1 ðyi  y
required that these indexes should be set to the desirable
R ¼ Pn 2
ð27Þ value, as shown in Table 2.
i¼1 ðyi  ymean Þ

PI ¼ adj:R2 þ 0:01VAF  RMSE ð28Þ

1 Xn
MAE ¼ jð ybi  yi Þj ð29Þ
n i¼1

Fig. 2. a Correlation matrix and b relationships between input variables and the output variable

123
1246 Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255

Table 2 Performance indices and their ideal values. Table 3 Parameter configuration of the hybrid models
Trend indices Ideal value Error indices Ideal value Parameters ELM- ELM- ELM- ANN- ANN- ANN-
EO MEO PSO EO MEO PSO
Adj:R2 1 MAE 0
2 1 RMSE 0 No. of hidden 10 10 10 10 10 10
R
neuron (N)
PI 2 WMAPE 0
No. of hidden 1 1 1 1 1 1
layer (Nh)
Population size 30 30 30 30 30 30
(P)
4 Results and discussion Max. no. of 500 500 500 500 500 500
iterations (itr)
Inertia weights – – 0.9, – – 0.9,
This study carried out a detailed evaluation of parameters
(wmax ; wmin ) 0.4 0.4
to identify the best prediction model. All the data were
Acceleration – – 1,2 – – 1, 2
classified into training data (with 98 observations) and coefficient
testing data (with 32 observations). The former was (c1 ; c2 Þ
employed to build ANN- and ELM-based metaheuristic Random – – 0–1 – – 0–1
models, while the latter was utilized for model validation. parameters
(r 1 ; r 2 )
The above-mentioned indexes were assessed for predictive
performance estimation. The proposed models were com- Upper and lower ±1 ±1 ±1 ±1 ±1 ±1
bound (ub; lbÞ
pared in terms of prediction performance below. Moreover,
No. of learning 40 40 40 51 51 51
the ANN- and ELM-grounded models are comparatively parameters
assessed in terms of metaheuristic parametric configura- Generation 0.50 0.50 – 0.50 0.50 –
tions, introducing the best prediction model. probability
(GP)
4.1 Implementation of models Exploration 2 2 – 2 2 –
constant (a1 )
Once the experimental data have been arranged, the EO,
MEO, and PSO approaches are utilized for the bias and
weight optimization of the ANN- and ELM-based algo-
rithms. As metaheuristic algorithms are of a random nature,
it is essential to find the parametric configuration (that is,
the parameters that can be adjusted) in all optimization
models. Hence, it is required to tune the adjustable param-
eters during process execution. The optimal hidden layer
neuron count is found to be 10 by using trial-and-error in
the ANN. Here, deterministic parameters undergo robust
analyses, as shown in Table 3. MEO is observed to have
effective performance (within the test stage based on the R2
and RMSE results) within the ELM and ANN. Figures 3
and 4 show iterative performance of ELM-based and ANN-
based models, respectively.

4.2 Results of the employed models

ELM-PSO, ANN-EO, ANN-MEO, ELM-EO, and ELM-
MEO are developed as optimized metaheuristic ANN- and
ELM-based techniques for tight carbonate permeability
estimation. Once the data have been classified, the training
data are utilized to train the Ann and ELM by using EO,
MEO, and PSO prior to retrieving the optimized biases and
weights. It is required to incorporate a hidden layer con-
taining 10 hidden neurons for the ANN models. Trial-and-
Fig. 3. Convergence curves of ELM-based hybrid models
error is applied to determine the hidden neuron count as
they have a random nature. Furthermore, the linear
(trainlm) and tangent sigmoid (tansig) functions are
applied as the training and transfer functions, respectively.
ELM-EO, ELM-MEO, ELM-PSO, ANN-EO, ANN-MEO,
and ANN-MEO are developed based on Table 3.

123
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255 1247

Table 5 Details of performance indices for the testing dataset

Indices ELM- ELM- ELM- ANN- ANN-
EO MEO PSO EO MEO

Adj.R2 0.8501 0.8609 0.8335 0.8276 0.8165

2
R 0.8646 0.8743 0.8496 0.8443 0.8343
PI 1.6312 1.6538 1.5942 1.5800 1.5557
MAE 0.0685 0.0660 0.0743 0.0709 0.0766
RMSE 0.0836 0.0806 0.0889 0.0902 0.0931
WMAPE 0.1601 0.1541 0.1737 0.1656 0.1789
Indices ANN-PSO RF RVM MARS GP

Adj.R2 0.7674 0.8257 0.8432 0.7433 0.8495

R2 0.7899 0.8426 0.8583 0.7682 0.8641
PI 1.4485 1.5408 1.6136 1.3781 1.6300
Fig. 4. Convergence curves of ANN-based hybrid models
MAE 0.0794 0.0738 0.0685 0.0748 0.0681
RMSE 0.1051 0.0980 0.0859 0.1164 0.0836
Subsequently, the test data are used for generalizability
WMAPE 0.1854 0.1725 0.1599 0.1747 0.1592
assessment. The performance indexes were separately
measured for the training and testing data, as shown in
Tables 4 and 5, respectively. The models were completely
compared and the ELM-MEO was found to be the best
model. Tables 4 and 5 provide measured performance proposed models in the training and testing stages,
indexes. Figs. 5a–j and 6a–j illustrate the regression plots respectively. As can be seen, the entire models were cor-
of the hybrid prediction models and conventional MLAs in related in the permeability estimates. ELM-MEO showed
training and testing, respectively. the best predictive performance, with R2 = 0.9323,
RMSE = 0.0612 and MAE = 0.0442 in the training stage.
4.3 Statistical analysis of the results For the testing stage, on the other hand, the indexes were
obtained as R2 = 0.8743, RMSE = 0.0806 and MAE =
This subsection discusses the performance parameter 0.0660. Also, PI, MAE, and WMAPE suggest no uncer-
results (i.e.,Adj:R2 , R2 , PI, MAE, RMSE and WMAPE). tainties in the outcomes as the entire parameters followed
Tables 4 and 5 list the output parameters of the six the pre-defined trends.

4.4 Visualization of the results

Table 4 Details of performance indices for the training dataset.
Indices ELM- ELM- ELM- ANN- ANN- Modelled outcome visualization is an essential phase in
EO MEO PSO EO MEO soft computing. The graphical description of raw findings
typically makes it easy for spectators to identify the results
Adj.R2 0.9231 0.9302 0.9247 0.9096 0.9087
and suggest a genuine insight. Thus, the visual interpreta-
R2 0.9255 0.9323 0.9270 0.9124 0.9115
tion of findings (in the form of the Taylor Diagrams and
PI 1.7843 1.8013 1.7881 1.7523 1.7501
Regression Error Characteristic Graphs) is addressed
MAE 0.0477 0.0442 0.0480 0.0550 0.0560
below. Furthermore, an uncertainty analysis is conducted
RMSE 0.0643 0.0612 0.0636 0.0697 0.0701
to ascertain the reliability of the developed models.
WMAPE 0.1144 0.1067 0.1156 0.1305 0.1330
Taylor diagram [52, 53] is a two-dimensional mathe-
Indices ANN-PSO RF RVM MARS GP matical representation with the aim of demonstrating the
Adj.R2 0.8971 0.8186 0.9054 0.9233 0.9158
accuracy of models in a very suitable and compact manner.
These diagrams are a summarized description of statistical
R2 0.9003 0.8242 0.9083 0.9257 0.9184
investigations and indicate the fitness of the results con-
PI 1.7227 1.5156 1.7422 1.7849 1.7670
cerning the real and proposed techniques. In a Taylor
MAE 0.0598 0.0862 0.0558 0.0506 0.0516
diagram, a single point represents the association, root-
RMSE 0.0745 0.1049 0.0713 0.0642 0.0672
mean-square-deviation (RMSD), and the standard devia-
WMAPE 0.1428 0.2038 0.1320 0.1212 0.1233
tion ratio of two parameters. A closer position to the ref-
erence point stands for higher predictive performance. On

123
1248
Fig. 5. a–j Regression plots between measured and predicted values at the training stage
the other hand, regression error characteristic (REC) curve
[54–56] represents the error tolerance on the x-axis and
regression accuracy on the y-axes, respectively. The error
on the x-axis is typically discussed based on the absolute
deviation (AD) or squared error (SE). However, the
obtained curve is a measure of the cumulative distribution
function of the error. Typically, a lower distance of the
curve from the top-left corner represents higher accuracy.
The area under the curve (AUC) is calculated to obtain the
overall accuracy of a predictive model.
The Taylor graphs of the training and testing data are
plotted in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The position of ELM-
123
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255
MEO is seemingly in a shorter distance from the reference
point, while, Figs. 9 and 10 illustrate the REC curves of the
proposed models in the training and testing stages,
respectively. It is also seen that the AUC quantities of the
entire metaheuristic prediction models are seemingly high;
ELM-MEO exhibited the largest AUC quantities of 0.9636
and 0.9446 in the training and testing phases, respectively,
turned out to be the best predictive model.
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255 1249

Fig. 6. a–j Regression plots between measured and predicted values at the testing stage

4.5 Uncertainty analysis (UA) absolute error between the observed data (yi ) and predicted
quantities (b
y i ) as:
The proposed models and typical MLAs are subjected to ei ¼ jyi  ybi j ð34Þ
quantitative evaluation (i.e., they are analyzed for uncer-
tainty) in terms of tight carbonate permeability prediction. Additionally, one can obtain the mean of error (MOE)
To this end, the results of the training and test data were and standard deviation (SD) for a given prediction as:
combined. The datasets involved 130 real-time observation PN
ei
data points. Therefore, it may be beneficial to subject MOE ¼ i¼1 ð35Þ
N
predictive results to logical comparison to perform the
reliability evaluation of the models. Furthermore, one can
adopt the UA index to examine other comparative evalu-
ation parameters. In this respect, it is possible to obtain the

123
1250 Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255

Fig. 7. Taylor diagram of the developed models: a ELM-based models; b ANN-based models; c other models for the training dataset

Fig. 8. Taylor diagram of the developed models: a ELM-based models; b ANN-based models; c other models for the testing dataset

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PN 2 and is capable of prediction at higher accuracy. According
i¼1 ðei  MOEÞ
SD ¼ ð36Þ
N1
in which ei denotes the absolute error, N stands for the
observation count. After calculation of the MOE and SD of
the training and test data, this study calculated the margin
of error (ME) at a confidence interval of 95% to obtain the
width of confidence bound (WCB). Then, the standard
error (SE), lower bound (LB) and upper bound (UB) were
computed as:
SD
SE ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; UB ¼ MOE þ ME; LB
N1
¼ MOE  ME; WCB ¼ UB  LB ð37Þ
WCB stands for a range of errors where nearly 95% of
the data rest. Table 6 provides a detailed description of UA.
As can be seen, the number of observations (N), SD, MOE,
ME, SE, UB, WCB, and LB are provided. According to
Table 6, it is possible to perform the performance evalua-
tion of the models. It should be noted that a smaller WCB
represents higher certainty. In other words, a smaller WCB
implies that the model undergoes a smaller level of error
to the UA results, ELM-MEO yielded the smallest WCB
and ME values of 0.0334 and 0.0167, respectively. Thus,
ELM-MEO is found to have the highest predictive accu-
racy. Furthermore, smaller SE, SD, and MOE quantities
suggest higher reliability for ELM-MEO than the other
proposed models. As a result, the proposed ELM-based
approaches, specifically ELM-MEO, are observed to have
the lowest uncertainty and highest confidence. Fig. 11
illustrates the UA results in horizontal bar chart, demon-
strating the MOE, SD, SE, ME, LB, UB, and WCB values
for the purpose of a better comparison.
4.6 Discussion on results
Previous subsections provided a detailed result description
of the proposed ELM and ANN-based metaheuristic
models. This subsection will present a summarized dis-
cussion based on the results obtained in this study. At the
beginning of developing ELM and ANN-based meta-
heuristic approaches, training data were employed to
examine the goodness of fitness (GOF). Also, test data

123
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255
Fig. 9. REC plots of a ELM-based models, b ANN-based models,
and c conventional models for the training stage
were utilized for prediction evaluation. Then, the proposed
metaheuristic hybrid approaches were compared to GP,
MARS, RVM, and RF as typical ML approaches. Next, the
results were estimated, providing a detailed assessment.
1251
Fig. 10. REC plots of a ELM-based models, b ANN-based models,
and c conventional models for the testing stage
The evaluation was initially carried out by a number of
performance indexes. It was found that the entire devel-
oped models were related in tight carbonates permeability
measurement. The findings revealed that developed models
had the ability to mimic the relationships between tight
carbonate permeability and the influential parameters.
During training, the coefficient of determination was cal-
culated to be higher than 0.90 for the models (including
123
1252 Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255

Table 6 Results of uncertainty analysis

Model N MOE SD SE ME LB UB WCB

ELM-EO 32 0.0685 0.0478 0.0084 0.0172 0.0513 0.0858 0.0345

ELM-MEO 32 0.0660 0.0463 0.0082 0.0167 0.0493 0.0827 0.0334
ELM-PSO 32 0.0743 0.0487 0.0086 0.0175 0.0568 0.0919 0.0351
ANN-EO 32 0.0709 0.0557 0.0098 0.0201 0.0508 0.0910 0.0402
ANN-MEO 32 0.0766 0.0529 0.0094 0.0191 0.0575 0.0957 0.0382
ANN-PSO 32 0.0794 0.0689 0.0122 0.0248 0.0545 0.1042 0.0497
RF 32 0.0738 0.0645 0.0114 0.0233 0.0506 0.0971 0.0465
RVM 32 0.0685 0.0520 0.0092 0.0187 0.0497 0.0872 0.0375
MARS 32 0.0748 0.0893 0.0158 0.0322 0.0426 0.1070 0.0644
GP 32 0.0681 0.0484 0.0086 0.0174 0.0507 0.0856 0.0349

Fig. 11. Bar plots of uncertainty analysis

ELM-EO, ELM-MEO, ELM-PSO, ANN-EO, ANN-MEO
and ANN-PSO). Among common ML approaches, how-
ever, R2 was obtained to be below 0.90 for RF
(R2 = 0.8242). Nonetheless, ELM-MEO exhibited the
highest predictive performance, with R2 = 0.9323,
RMSE = 0.0612 and MAE = 0.0442, upon the training
data. Concerning the testing data, ELM-MEO outper-
formed the other algorithms in terms of prediction. How-
ever, the remaining four models did not follow the same
descending order on the testing data as that of the training
data. In other words, the prediction performance ranks
were found to be in the order of ELM-MEO [ ELM-
EO [ GP [ RVM [ ELM-PSO [ ANN-EO [ RF [
ANN-MEO [ ANN-PSO [ MARS. In addition, graphical
result demonstrations were provided in the forms of Taylor
diagrams, convergence curves, REC curves, and accuracy
matrices to indicate the strengths of the proposed models.
The Taylor diagrams mathematically described the models
based on RMSE,R2 and variance ratios. Similarly, an
accuracy matric reveals the accuracy degree of a given
model for a given performance index. The results of ELM-
MEO model were compared to the results of [50] which
used the same dataset and influential variables as this study
with feedforward multilayer perceptron network (FFMLP)
and genetic algorithm (GA) as ML models. R2 values for
FFMLP and GA in [50] are 0.908 and 0.888 in training
stage and 0.886 and 0.858 in testing stage, respectively. It
exhibits the superiority of the proposed ELM-MEO with R2

123
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255
values of 0.9323 and 8843 in training and testing stages,
respectively.
5 Conclusions
It is believed that reliably and accurately estimating the
permeability of tight rocks helps save both cost and time.
This work proposed metaheuristic hybrid prediction mod-
els, including the novel ELM-MEO, to predict permeability
(k). The models were grounded on PSO, EO, MEO, PSO,
ANN, and ELM approaches. The present study adopted
ELM and ANN to build a mapping function inferring the
k value through input variables, whereas the metaheuristic
approaches were utilized for the bias and weight opti-
mization of the connecting ELM and ANN neurons.
According to the experimental findings, ELM-MEO had
the highest prediction accuracy in both training and testing
stages. The testing stage revealed no significant variations
or unacceptable quantities. This confirms the generaliz-
ability and robustness of the models. Furthermore, GP,
MARS, RVM, and RF were compared to the proposed
metaheuristic hybrid approaches in terms of performances.
Given the understandings and gaps, EO was employed
as a newly introduced metaheuristic optimization algorithm
to build ELM-EO and ANN-EO. Also, the enhanced EO
variant (MEO) was introduced to extend local and global
EO searching. According to the experimental findings,
ELM-MEO had the highest prediction performance in
terms of the convergence rate, performance indexes, and
computational time. In addition, ELM-MEO was found to
outperform not only the other metaheuristic hybrid models
(i.e., ANN-PSO, ANN-EO, ANN-MEO, ELM-EO, and
ELM-PSO) but also GP, MARS, RVM, and RF. It is
supported by the convergence rate and computational
accuracy. Prediction accuracy implies that ELM-MEO is a
promising method for dealing with real-life problems in
engineering. The future work of this study may include
detailed assessment of accuracy of the ELM-MEO model
over other ELM and ANN-based meta-heuristic models
using real-life data from different fields. Meanwhile, fur-
ther study will also focus on the implementation of the
modified approach of EO for improving the performance of
standard version of metaheuristic algorithms and develop-
ment of ANFIS and SVM-based meta-heuristic models for
the assessment of superiority of MEO in hybrid modelling.
However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the present
work pioneers the utilization of ANN- and ELM-based
hybrid Equilibrium Optimizer and Modified Equilibrium
Optimizer approaches for the prediction of permeability
(k).
1253
Acknowledgements This work was financially supported by the
High-end Foreign Expert Introduction program (No. G20200022005)
and Science and Technology Research Program of Chongqing
Municipal Education Commission (No. KJCXZD2020002).
Author’s contribution NK contributed to conceptualization,
methodological development, development of AI models, overall
analysis, and manuscript finalization; AB contributed to conceptual-
ization, development of AI models, methodological development,
detailing, overall analysis, and manuscript finalization; SG con-
tributed to development of Improved EO algorithm and method-
ological development; PS was involved in reviewing and editing; MN
contributed to reviewing and editing; YMZ contributed to guidance,
reviewing, editing, and manuscript finalization; and AZ contributed to
guidance, reviewing, editing, and manuscript finalization.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest statement.
References
1. Ehrenberg S, Nadeau P (2005) Sandstone vs carbonate petroleum
reservoirs: a global perspective on porosity-depth and porosity-
permeability relationships. AAPG Bull 89(4):435–445
2. Harris PM (2010) Delineating and quantifying depositional facies
patterns in carbonate reservoirs: Insight from modern analogs.
AAPG Bull 94(1):61–86
3. Rashid F, Glover P, Lorinczi P, Hussein D, Collier R, Lawrence J
(2015) Permeability prediction in tight carbonate rocks using
capillary pressure measurements. Mar Petrol Geol 68:536–550
4. Brigaud B, Vincent B, Durlet C, Deconinck J-F, Blanc P,
Trouiller A (2010) Acoustic properties of ancient shallow-marine
carbonates: effects of depositional environments and diagenetic
processes (Middle Jurassic, Paris Basin, France). J Sediment Res
80(9):791–807
5. Rashid F, Glover P, Lorinczi P, Hussein D, Lawrence J (2017)
Microstructural controls on reservoir quality in tight oil carbonate
reservoir rocks. J Petrol Sci Eng 156:814–826
6. Goh A, Zhang W, Zhang Y, Xiao Y, Xiang Y (2018) Determi-
nation of earth pressure balance tunnel-related maximum surface
settlement: a multivariate adaptive regression splines approach.
Bull Eng Geol Environ 77(2):489–500
7. Goh AT, Zhang Y, Zhang R, Zhang W, Xiao Y (2017) Evaluating
stability of underground entry-type excavations using multivari-
ate adaptive regression splines and logistic regression. Tunnel
Undergr Space Technol 70:148–154
8. Wang L, Wu C, Tang L, Zhang W, Lacasse S, Liu H et al (2020)
Efficient reliability analysis of earth dam slope stability using
extreme gradient boosting method. Acta Geotech 15(11):
3135–3150
9. Zhang W, Li H, Wu C, Li Y, Liu Z, Liu H (2020) Soft computing
approach for prediction of surface settlement induced by earth
pressure balance shield tunneling. Undergr Space. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.undsp.2019.12.003
10. Zhang W, Zhang R, Wu C, Goh ATC, Lacasse S, Liu Z et al
(2020) State-of-the-art review of soft computing applications in
underground excavations. Geosci Front 11(4):1095–1106
11. Zhang W, Li Y, Chongzhi WU, Hongrui Li, Goh A, Zhang R
(2020) Prediction of lining response for twin-tunnel construction
in anisotropic clays using machine learning techniques. Undergr
Space. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2020.02.007
123
1254
12. Zhu L, Zhang C, Zhang C, Wei Y, Zhou X, Cheng Y et al (2018)
Prediction of total organic carbon content in shale reservoir based
on a new integrated hybrid neural network and conventional well
logging curves. J Geophys Eng 15(3):1050–1061
13. Onalo D, Adedigba S, Khan F, James LA, Butt S (2018) Data
driven model for sonic well log prediction. J Petrol Sci Eng
170:1022–1037
14. Onalo D, Oloruntobi O, Adedigba S, Khan F, James L, Butt S
(2019) Dynamic data driven sonic well log model for formation
evaluation. J Petrol Sci Eng 175:1049–1062
15. Zhu L, Zhang C, Zhang C, Zhang Z, Zhou X, Zhu B (2019) An
improved theoretical nonelectric water saturation method for
organic shale reservoirs. IEEE Access 7:51441–51456
16. Xue Y, Cheng L, Mou J, Zhao W (2014) A new fracture pre-
diction method by combining genetic algorithm with neural
network in low-permeability reservoirs. J Petrol Sci Eng
121:159–166
17. Wang H, Wu W, Chen T, Dong X, Wang G (2019) An improved
neural network for TOC, S1 and S2 estimation based on con-
ventional well logs. J Petrol Sci Eng 176:664–678
18. Lim J-S, Kim J (2004) Reservoir porosity and permeability
estimation from well logs using fuzzy logic and neural networks.
In: SPE Asia Pacific oil and gas conference and exhibition.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
19. Tang H (2008) Improved carbonate reservoir facies classification
using artificial neural network method. In: Canadian international
petroleum conference. OnePetro
20. Tang H, Meddaugh WS, Toomey N (2011) Using an artificial-
neural-network method to predict carbonate well log facies suc-
cessfully. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 14(1):35–44
21. Zhou X, Zhang C, Zhang Z, Zhang R, Zhu L, Zhang C (2019) A
saturation evaluation method in tight gas sandstones based on
diagenetic facies. Mar Petrol Geol 107:310–325
22. Zhu L-q, Zhang C, Wei Y, Zhang C-m (2017) Permeability
prediction of the tight sandstone reservoirs using hybrid intelli-
gent algorithm and nuclear magnetic resonance logging data.
Arab J Sci Eng 42(4):1643–1654
23. Zhu L, Zhang C, Wei Y, Zhou X, Huang Y, Zhang C (2017)
Inversion of the permeability of a tight gas reservoir with the
combination of a deep Boltzmann kernel extreme learning
machine and nuclear magnetic resonance logging transverse
relaxation time spectrum data. Interpretation 5(3):T341–T350
24. Faramarzi A, Heidarinejad M, Stephens B, Mirjalili S (2020)
Equilibrium optimizer: a novel optimization algorithm. Knowl
Based Syst 191:105190
25. Kardani N, Bardhan A, Samui P, Nazem M, Zhou A, Armaghani
DJ (2021) A novel technique based on the improved firefly
algorithm coupled with extreme learning machine (ELM-IFF) for
predicting the thermal conductivity of soil. Eng Comput 1:1–20
26. Wang L, Chongzhi Wu, Tang L, Zhang W, Lacasse S, Liu H, Gao
L (2020) Efficient reliability analysis of earth dam slope stability
using extreme gradient boosting method. Acta Geotech
15(11):3135–3150
27. Kardani N, Zhou A, Nazem M, Shen S-L (2020) Estimation of
bearing capacity of piles in cohesionless soil using optimised
machine learning approaches. Geotech Geol Eng
38(2):2271–2291
28. Zhang R, Wu C, Goh AT, Böhlke T, Zhang W (2020) Estimation
of diaphragm wall deflections for deep braced excavation in
anisotropic clays using ensemble learning. Geosci Front
12(1):365–373
29. Chen L, Zhang W, Gao X, Wang L, Li Z, Böhlke T, Umberto
(2020) Design charts for reliability assessment of rock bedding
slopes stability against bi-planar sliding: SRLEM and BPNN
approaches. Georisk. https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2020.
1815215
123
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255
30. Kardani MN, Baghban A, Hamzehie ME, Baghban M (2019)
Phase behavior modeling of asphaltene precipitation utilizing
RBF-ANN approach. Petrol Sci Technol 37(16):1861–1867
31. Kardani N, Zhou A, Nazem M, Lin X (2021) Modelling of
municipal solid waste gasification using an optimised ensemble
soft computing model. Fuel 289:119903
32. Gupta S, Deep K, Mirjalili S (2020) An efficient equilibrium
optimizer with mutation strategy for numerical optimization.
Appl Soft Comput 96:106542
33. Zhang W, Wu C, Zhong H, Li Y, Wang L (2021) Prediction of
undrained shear strength using extreme gradient boosting and
random forest based on Bayesian optimization. Geosci Front
12:469–477
34. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In:
Proceedings of ICNN’95-international conference on neural
networks, vol. 4. IEEE, pp 1942–1948.
35. Ho TK (1995) Random decision forests. In: Proceedings of 3rd
international conference on document analysis and recognition,
vol 1. IEEE, pp 278–282
36. Kardani N, Zhou A, Nazem M, Shen S-L (2021) Improved pre-
diction of slope stability using a hybrid stacking ensemble
method based on finite element analysis and field data. J Rock
Mech Geotech Eng 13(1):188–201
37. Zhang W, Wu C, Li Y, Wang L, Samui P (2019) Assessment of
pile drivability using random forest regression and multivariate
adaptive regression splines. Georisk Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst
Geohazards 15:1–14
38. Zhang W, Zhang R, Wu C, Goh AT, Wang L (2020) Assessment
of basal heave stability for braced excavations in anisotropic clay
using extreme gradient boosting and random forest regression.
Undergr Space. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2020.03.001
39. Kardani N, Bardhan A, Kim D, Samui P, Zhou A (2020) Mod-
elling the energy performance of residential buildings using
advanced computational frameworks based on RVM, GMDH,
ANFIS-BBO and ANFIS-IPSO. J Build Eng 35:102105
40. Tipping ME (2000) The relevance vector machine. In: Solla S,
Leen T, Müller K (eds) Advances in neural information pro-
cessing systems, vol 12. MIT Press, pp 652–658
41. Viswanathan R, Jagan J, Samui P, Porchelvan P (2015) Spatial
variability of rock depth using simple kriging, ordinary kriging,
RVM and MPMR. Geotech Geol Eng 33(1):69–78
42. Wang L, Chongzhi W, Xin G, Liu H, Mei G, Zhang W (2020)
Probabilistic stability analysis of earth dam slope under transient
seepage using multivariate adaptive regression splines. Bull Eng
Geol Environ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-020-01730-0
43. Wengang Z, Runhong Z, Wei W, Fan Z, Goh ATC (2019) A
Multivariate adaptive regression splines model for determining
horizontal wall deflection envelope for braced excavations in
clays. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 84:461–471
44. Zhang W, Goh ATC (2013) Multivariate adaptive regression
splines for analysis of geotechnical engineering systems. Comput
Geotech 48:82–95
45. Zhang W, Goh ATC (2016) Multivariate adaptive regression
splines and neural network models for prediction of pile driv-
ability. Geosci Front 7(1):45–52
46. Zhang W, Zhang Y, Goh AT (2017) Multivariate adaptive
regression splines for inverse analysis of soil and wall properties
in braced excavation. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 64:24–33
47. Deo RC, Samui P (2017) Forecasting evaporative loss by least-
square support-vector regression and evaluation with genetic
programming, Gaussian process, and minimax probability
machine regression: case study of Brisbane City. J Hydrol Eng
22(6):05017003
48. Holland JH (1992) Genetic algorithms. Sci Am 267(1):66–73
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:1239–1255
49. Samui P, Dalkiliç Y, Jagan J (2015) Site characterization using
GP. MARS and GPR handbook of genetic programming appli-
cations. Springer, Berlin, pp 345–357
50. Al Khalifah H, Glover P, Lorinczi P (2020) Permeability pre-
diction and diagenesis in tight carbonates using machine learning
techniques. Mar Petrol Geol 112:104096
51. Barton C, Woods M, Bristow C, Newall A, Westhead R, Evans
DJ et al (2011) Geology of south Dorset and south-east Devon
and its World Heritage Coast: special memoir for 1: 50,000
geological sheets 328 Dorchester, 341/342 West Fleet and
Weymouth and 342/343 Swanage, and parts of sheets 326/340
Sidmouth, 327 Bridport, 329 Bournemouth and 339 Newton
Abbot. British Geological Survey
52. Ray R, Kumar D, Samui P, Bahadur Roy L, Goh ATC, Zhang W
(2021) Application of soft computing techniques for shallow
foundation reliability in geotechnical engineering. Geosci Front
12:375–383
1255
53. Taylor KE (2001) Summarizing multiple aspects of model per-
formance in a single diagram. J Geophys Res Atmosp
106(D7):7183–7192
54. Bi J, Bennett KP (2003) Regression error characteristic curves.
In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on machine
learning (ICML-03), pp 43–50
55. Kumar M, Bardhan A, Samui P, Hu JW, Kaloop RM (2021)
Reliability analysis of pile foundation using soft computing
techniques: a comparative study. Processes 9(3):486
56. Zhang W, Li H, Li Y, Liu H, Chen Y, Ding X (2021) Application
of deep learning algorithms in geotechnical engineering: a short
critical review. Artif Intell Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-
021-09967-1
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123