WellTest

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

21 Aufrufe

Tian 2015

WellTest

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- neuralnetworks
- Resume
- Thesis Rakhlin
- Dillon Daudert Resume
- CoordinateGradientDescentMethodForL1RegularizedConvexMinimization
- ML JD- MOMO.pdf
- Ghisi Dan - PHDThesis
- Analyst Skills
- كتاب أدعية النبي .
- UT Dallas Syllabus for cs6375.501.08f taught by Haim Schweitzer (haim)
- 5613-rc209_010d-mahout
- Pearce 2005
- Aiso
- Cluster Analysis
- Smartphone-based personalized blood glucose prediction.pdf
- mrsp4
- CS 391L Machine Learning Course Syllabus
- Reliable and Explainable
- Application of statistical methods and artificial neural networks for approximating ships roll in beam waves
- Harshit Satya

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15

Reconstruction

Chuan Tian and Roland N. Horne, Stanford University

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, USA, 28 30 September 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents

of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect

any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written

consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may

not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Permanent downhole gauges (PDGs) can provide a continuous record of flow rate and pressure, which

provides us rich information about the reservoir and makes PDG data a valuable source for reservoir

analysis. In previous work, it has been shown that kernel ridge regression based machine learning is a

promising tool to interpret pressure transients from a single PDG. Kernel ridge regression denoises and

deconvolves the pressure signal efficiently and recovers the full reservoir behaviors. In this work, the

machine learning framework was extended to two applications: multiwell testing and flow rate recon-

struction.

The multiwell testing was formulated into the machine learning algorithm using a feature-coefficient-

target model. The features were nonlinear functions of flow rate histories of all the wells. For each well,

the features and the pressure target of this well were used to train its coefficients, which implicitly contain

the information about the reservoir model and well interactions. The reservoir model can then be revealed

by predicting the pressure corresponding to a simple rate history with the trained model. The multiwell

machine learning model was demonstrated to be useful in several different ways, including artificial

interference testing and reservoir pressure prediction at various well locations based on flow rate data

only.

Flow rate reconstruction aims at estimating any missing flow rate history by using available pressure

history. This is a very useful capability in practical applications in which individual well rates are not

recorded continuously. A set of new features were developed as functions of pressure to model the flow

rate. Coupled with kernel ridge regression, the developed features were tested on both synthetic and real

data sets and demonstrated high prediction accuracy. The success of the rate reconstruction modeling also

illustrates the flexibility of machine learning to different kinds of modeling, by adapting features and

targets.

The models for both applications maintained the advantages of the machine learning based single well

pressure interpretation in terms of the accuracy of prediction, computational efficiency and tolerance to

noise. This work further demonstrates machine learning as a promising technique for PDG data analysis.

2 SPE-175059-MS

Introduction

A permanent downhole gauge (PDG) is a device installed permanently in a well, to provide a continuous

record of pressure, temperature and sometimes also flow rate during production. Recently, PDGs have

become widely used in the industry. However, analyzing PDG data is challenging because of the inherent

characteristics of the data, including continuously variable flow rate, noise, and the large data volume.

Up to now, most effort on PDG data analysis has been for pressure transient analysis on single wells,

although there have also been some studies on temperature transient analysis and multiwell data analysis.

Recently, there have been some attempts to apply machine learning techniques for PDG data analysis, for

example Liu and Horne (2012, 2013a, 2013b). The fundamental idea is to learn the patterns behind PDG

data, where the patterns contain the reservoir information implicitly. Our previous study on single well

pressure analysis (Tian and Horne, 2015) showed that machine learning has the potential to handle the

complexities in PDG data analysis, and learn the reservoir model successfully.

In this work, we continued to utilize machine learning as the tool for investigation, but addressed two

different problems, namely, multiwell testing (multiwell pressure transient analysis) and flow rate

reconstruction. Both topics are important in PDG data analysis in practical engineering. We developed a

machine learning model for each problem and tested the models on different real and synthetic data sets.

The test results validated our developed approach, and illustrated the flexibility of the machine learning

framework to apply to different applications by adapting the features and the targets.

Literature Review

Machine Learning for PDG Data Analysis Machine learning has been applied widely in different

areas in computer science to extract the useful patterns behind data. Recently, there have been some

studies to adapt machine learning to reservoir engineering, to interpret data recorded by PDGs. Liu and

Horne (2013a, 2013b) developed the convolution kernel method to interpret flow rate and pressure data

from PDGs. The convolution method was shown to be successful in denoising and deconvolving the

pressure signal without explicit breakpoint detection. Based on the work of Liu and Horne (2013a, 2013b),

Tian and Horne (2015) proposed kernel ridge regression for pressure deconvolution. Kernel ridge

regression was shown to speed up the computation and recover the early transient behaviors, while

maintaining the advantages of the convolution kernel method described by Liu and Horne (2013a, 2013b),

which was effective but expensive computationally. Tian and Horne (2015) also tested the kernel ridge

regression approach on pressure-temperature interpretation. These works demonstrated machine learning

as a promising tool for PDG data analysis. The current study expanded their use to multiwell testing and

flow rate reconstruction problems.

Multiwell Testing As a field starts development, multiple active wells are expected and the behaviors of

those wells are likely to be impacted by each other. This is particularly true for PDG measurements,

because PDGs are installed permanently and record the well behaviors over the full life of the reservoir

development. Thus an extended approach to interpret PDG data for multiwell systems is required.

Mathematically, multiwell testing can be considered by superposition. Similar to multirate test

generating superposition in time, a multiwell test leads to superposition in space (Earlougher, 1977).

Superposition in both time and space makes multiwell test data even more complicated, and makes their

interpretation a very challenging research topic.

The simplest multiwell testing is the interference test, where one well (the active well) is put on

injection or production, and another well (the observation well) is shut in to monitor the pressure

changes caused by the first. The advantage of interference testing is that a greater volume of the reservoir

can be tested. Besides, both reservoir transmissivity (kh) and storativity (cth) can be estimated from the

pressure response (Horne, 1995). The disadvantage is that pressure drops can be very small due to the

separation distance and may be hidden by other operational variations. To interpret interference tests, the

SPE-175059-MS 3

data are matched usually to some form of the exponential integral type curve. In reality, the true reservoir

model is likely to have a much more complex physical structure.

Flow Rate Reconstruction Incomplete flow rate history is a common phenomenon in PDG measure-

ments. For most PDGs in which only pressure is measured, it would be very interesting if we could

back-calculate flow rate using the available pressure data, and estimate a rate history to provide us more

insights about the operation.

Nomura (2006) treated flow rate as a variable in his smoothing algorithm, which allowed for

uncertainty in both flow rate and pressure measurements. The algorithm was tested on a synthetic data set

where the flow rate was 10% off from the truth. After running the algorithm until convergence, Nomura

(2006) obtained a rate profile very close to the true flow rate. Although it looks promising, this method

required a good initial guess of the rate history for the algorithm to converge. In other words, the measured

flow rate should be similar to the true flow rate. However, if part of the rate history is completely missing,

the measured rate (which is zero) would be totally different from the true unknown rate. In that case,

Nomuras (2006) method could not produce an accurate rate estimation.

Ouyang and Sawiris (2003) proposed a theoretical development of calculating in-situ flow rate based

on permanent downhole pressure, where they assumed the steady-state flow of either a single phase or

well-mixed multiphase along the wellbore. They performed a field study applying such a calculation to

an offshore well, with a short and simple production profile. The estimated rate history was compared with

a PLT survey and showed a high consistency. However the assumptions and simplifications in their

derivations limit the application to more complicated multitransient analysis.

The challenge of reconstructing flow rate based on pressure data is that most models treat flow rate as

the cause of pressure response, not the outcome. However, estimating flow rate using pressure is

straightforward based on mathematical modeling. That is why we propose to apply machine learning here,

given machine learning as a powerful tool to find the pattern between variables.

Problem Statement

Based on the background information and literature review, the objectives of this research were set to be:

Extend the machine learning framework for pressure analysis on a single well to multiwell

systems. The framework should capture the well interference accurately, and be able to test a

greater area of the reservoir.

Develop a machine learning model to reconstruct the flow rate history by using pressure data.

Both models should maintain the advantages of the machine learning based single-well pressure

interpretation in terms of the accuracy of prediction, computational efficiency and tolerance to

noise.

Methodologies

Revisit of Machine Learning Concepts

First lets revisit the machine learning model developed for single well pressure transient analysis (Tian

and Horne, 2015), to be familiar with the context of machine learning and some of the important concepts

that will be used in this paper.

In single well pressure transient analysis, the goal is to model the pressurep(more accurately, the

pressure difference between the query point and the start point) using flow rate q and time t. So pressure

is labeled as target yp, and flow rate and time data are formulated into feature x[q,t]. The goal in

machine learning is to find an appropriate model f to describe the pattern between x and y, namely, yf(x).

However, the intuitive feature x[q,t] is shown to be inadequate for the modeling, and more efforts in

feature construction are required. We will review three machine learning techniques: linear regression,

kernel method and model regularization.

4 SPE-175059-MS

(1)

(2)

where q(i), t(i) and p(i) are the flow rate, time and pressure difference at the i-th data point, and n is

the number of observations from the PDG. The feature formulation is constructed to reflect the physical

properties of pressure response as a function of flow rate and time (details in Tian and Horne, 2015). In

linear regression, the relation between the feature and the target is assumed to be linear, namely,

f(x(i))Tx(i). The best model is defined in terms of minimizing the mean-squared error (Hastie et al.,

2009):

(3)

The value of that minimizes J() is given in closed form (Hastie et al., 2009):

(4)

(5)

(6)

Having the solution in closed form is a considerable advantage, as the computation of the unknown

coefficients is extremely fast.

Kernel Method The kernel method can be applied as a tool for feature expansion when we want the

model to learn in a higher-dimensional space than x. The kernel on two features x and z, is defined as the

inner product of the corresponding expanded features (x) and (z) (Shawe-Taylor and Cristianini, 2004).

Namely,

(7)

Now we apply the kernel method to map x(i) to (x) and to (Shawe-Taylor and

Cristianini, 2004):

(8)

Define the kernel matrix KM such that KM(i,j)K(x(i), x(j)),i, j1,...n (Shawe-Taylor and Cristianini,

2004). Then we can further summarize our model into the matrix form:

(9)

SPE-175059-MS 5

The solution can be obtained easily using K-1My. The kernel helps the algorithm to learn in (x)

dimensional space without explicit representation of (x). This property allows us to add more features

into our model with little cost. Once is obtained after training, pressure prediction ypred can be calculated

given xpred calculated from the test data:

(10)

Model Regularization Model regularization is a technique that reduces the prediction variance by

shrinking the parameter estimates (in our case, or ) to reduce the parameter space to only that

necessary. Generally there are two ways of model regularization: ridge regression and lasso (Hastie et al.,

2009). Both methods add some penalty to the cost function shown in Equation 3. Ridge regression adds

the penalty on the L2 norm of parameters:

(11)

In Equation 11, the tuning parameter controls the relative weights on a better fit and smaller

parameters (better generalization). Usually a ten-fold cross-validation is used to select an appropriate

value of (Hastie et al., 2009). After choosing a value for , parameters that minimize the cost function

in Equation 20 can be calculated (Hastie et al., 2009):

(12)

Ridge regression can also be applied on the kernel framework, which is called kernel ridge regression.

In kernel ridge regression, the cost function is:

(13)

(14)

Lasso changes the penalty term from L2 norm to L1 norm of the parameters (Hastie et al., 2009). Lasso

can also be applied on both linear regression and kernel frameworks.

Multiwell Testing

In this section, we describe a machine learning framework to model pressure using flow rate data for

multiwell systems. Here we have Well w from 1 to N. The pressure of each Well w is affected by the

production (or injection) of itself qw as well as the production (or injection) of the other wells , where

. Our goal is to model the pressure response of a given well pw using the flow

rate data of all the wells in the system (qw and ).

The main challenge of mutiwell testing is to model the well interactions caused by pressure superpo-

sition in space. To address this issue, we applied feature expansion on the basis features developed for

single well pressure transient analysis (Equation 1). The expanded features are written as the combinations

of the basis features of all the wells in the system:

(15)

6 SPE-175059-MS

where x(i) represents the expanded features, and x(i)w (given by Equation 1) represents the basis features

of Well w1,...,N. x(i)w describes the effect of the production (or injection) of Well w on the pressure

change at the observation well. Thus, we expect the well interactions to be captured by using those

expanded features. For a system of N wells, the dimension of the feature space expands from p (feature

dimension for single well) to N p. Accordingly, the dimension of coefficients also expands to Np.

Because of such explicit feature expansion, model regularization is always recommended for solving

multiwell system even without applying kernels. It should also be noted that the expanded features x(i) are

the same for each well.

A distinct machine-learning model is trained for each well, by using the expanded features and the

pressure of that well. Namely, a different w is trained using x(i) and y(i)w:

(16)

where w and y(i)w are the coefficients and pressure of Well w respectively. The intuition is that x(i)w

should have a small p-value (the probability of an observed or more extreme result assuming that there

is no relationship between the feature and the target) if Well w strongly affects the pressure at the

observation well. In other words, the well interaction is learned implicitly as we train the coefficients.

With a new set of flow rate histories, a new feature matrix Xpred can be developed using Equation 5.

Then the pressure prediction ypredw for each Well w is given by:

(17)

The absence of flow rate measurements is commonly seen in modern PDGs, for at least part (and

sometimes all) of the time. It would be very helpful if we could reconstruct the missing rates using the

available pressure data, to provide a more complete description of the operation. Because our goal is to

estimate the flow rate based on pressure data, flow rate is treated as the target and pressure is used as the

feature. As discussed in Section 1.1, the challenge here is that the current approaches imply pressure as

a function of flow rate (and time) rather than the reverse. To deal with this, we proposed the idea to apply

machine learning to establish a reverse relationship from pressure to flow rate. We imposed the features

mapping pressure to flow rate based on the features mapping flow rate to pressure in Equation 1. The

details of mathematical derivations are not covered here, but the principle idea is that flow rate can be

expressed using features in the form of pressure convolution:

(18)

After defining the features, we may apply kernel ridge regression following the same solving procedure

as shown in Section 2.1.

Multiwell Testing

Case 1: Artificial Interference Testing In this case, we have two wells producing in a homogeneous

reservoir. The flow rate and pressure of Well 1 are shown in Figure 1 (a) (b), and the flow rate and

pressure of Well 2 are shown in Figure 1 (c) (d). The pressure response at each well was designed to be

affected by the production of the other well. However, due to the nature of interference, the small

magnitude of pressure change caused by the other well is mostly hidden by the dominant pressure change

SPE-175059-MS 7

at the well itself. That makes it difficult for the machine-learning algorithm to differentiate the pressure

contributions from other wells.

8 SPE-175059-MS

Figure 1Machine learning results on Case 1. (a) and (c) show the true flow rate (blue) and the noisy training rate (circle) of Well 1 and

Well 2; (b) and (d) show the true pressure (blue), noisy training pressure (circle) and the pressure prediction (red) corresponding to true

flow rate of Well 1 and Well 2; (e) shows the flow rate of Well 1 during the interference test (Well 2 is shut in); (f) shows the comparison

of true pressure (blue) and pressure prediction (red) of Well 2 during the interference test.

SPE-175059-MS 9

The flow rate and pressure of both wells were augmented with artificial noise before training. After

training the model, we created an artificial inference testing by computing the response that would occur

if we were to have shut Well 2 while keeping Well 1 producing at constant rate, as shown in Figure 1 (e).

Namely, Well 1 was used as an active well and Well 2 was used as an observation well. Figure 1 (f) shows

the comparison of the pressure prediction at Well 2 and the true data. Although the pressure change in the

interference test is much smaller in comparison with the training case, the algorithm still captured the

trend of this small pressure interference.

The example of interference testing demonstrates the ability of our multiwell machine learning model

to learn the well interactions, even though the magnitude of pressure interference is small. The idea of

artificial interference testing can also be useful because it does not require additional cost in the field

operations. The observation well is shut in the computer program but not in the field. If we have PDG data

from multiple wells, an artificial interference test can be implemented easily by picking one active well

and observing the pressure response at other wells.

Case 2: Pressure Forecast Here we add further complexities to the machine-learning task by introduc-

ing a greater number of wells and the presence of two-phase flow. Our goal is to forecast the pressure

given flow rate controls at various well locations. Four production wells are located at the corners of a

homogeneous reservoir and an injection well sits in the center. The flow rate control and pressure response

of two producers and the injector are shown in Figure 2.

10 SPE-175059-MS

Figure 2Machine learning results on Case 2. (a) and (b) show the flow rate and pressure of Producer 1; (c) and (d) show the flow rate

and pressure of Producer 2; (e) and (f) show the flow rate and pressure of the injector. Data to the left of the dashed line were used for

training and the data to the left were used for validation.

SPE-175059-MS 11

As discussed earlier, the key idea in multiwell testing is to expand the feature dimension to include the

contributions from multiple wells. Adding more wells only means adding more features. Besides feature

expansion, no other treatment was required to account for the additional number of wells. To address the

two-phase issue, we replaced the oil rate by total liquid rate when constructing the features. That reflects

the physics that the pressure response is caused by the flowing of both phases. A cross-validation was

applied by using data on the left of the dashed line in Figure 2 for training, and the remaining part of the

data for validation. The results show an accurate match to the training set as well as a good prediction on

the validation set, although we did observe a deviation in pressure prediction for the injector (Figure 2 (f)).

Thus we conclude that our machine-learning framework does have the flexibility to work on multiwell

systems with two-phase flow.

Case 3: Synthetic Data In this case, we trained the machine learning model using pressure and flow rate

data with artificial noise as shown in Figure 3 (a) and (b). It should be noted that the direction of the

modeling was different although the training data were still pressure and flow rate. After training, two

pressure histories were used as input to generate the flow rate predictions. The comparison of the

predictions and the true flow rate that used to generate the input pressure are shown in Figure 3 (c) and

(d). We observe a high agreement between predictions and true data in both cases, although the zig-zag

flow rate looks very different from the training rate. That demonstrates the ability of our method to

generalize well to unknown data.

12 SPE-175059-MS

Figure 3Machine learning results on Case 3. (a) and (b) show the noisy training pressure and flow rate data respectively; (c) shows

the flow rate reconstruction corresponding to stepwise pressure in (a); (d) shows the flow rate reconstruction corresponding to zigzag

pressure.

Case 4: Real Data Our machine-learning approach for flow rate reconstruction was further tested on a

real PDG data set. In the training step, part of the flow rate data was hidden to mimic the situation of

missing measurements (Figure 4 (a) and (b)). After training, the complete pressure history was used as

input to reconstruct the missing flow rate. Figure 4 (d) shows the comparison of reconstructed flow rate

(red) and the true measurements. We observe a good agreement between the two. Case 4 illustrates how

the developed model can be useful in real life. Usually we have continuous pressure measurements from

the PDG, but parts of the flow rate measurement are missing or may be unreliable. In that case, as long

as we have at least one period of consistent pressure and flow rate measurements to learn the pattern

between the two, we are able to apply the flow rate reconstruction technique to create an estimate of the

missing flow rates.

SPE-175059-MS 13

Figure 4 Machine learning results on Case 4. (a) and (b) show the training pressure and flow rate with part of history missing; (c)

shows the complete pressure history; (d) shows the reconstructed flow rate using pressure input in (c).

In short, a new set of features were developed to model flow rate using pressure measurements.

Coupled with the kernel ridge regression framework, the features were tested on both synthetic and real

data sets, and showed promising performance. The results also indicate another property of machine

learning: the flexibility in direction of modeling by adapting features and targets.

Conclusions

There are mainly three conclusions of this work.

The machine-learning approach for PDG pressure analysis was extended from single-well to

multiwell systems. The multiwell model was shown to be able to capture the well interactions

accurately, and differentiate the pressure contributions from various wells. The multiwell model

was tested in two promising applications: artificial interference test creation without affecting field

operation, and pressure forecasting for multiwell systems with given rate control.

A machine-learning model was developed for flow-rate reconstruction with new definitions of

features and targets. The model was tested on both synthetic and real data, and showed promising

performance. Our machine-learning model provides an effective alternative approach to estimate

14 SPE-175059-MS

the missing flow rate compared with earlier optimization or analytical solution approaches,

because these approaches require an assumption of the reservoir model.

This work demonstrates the flexibility of machine learning in solving different applications.

Pressure transient analysis, multiwell testing and flow rate construction each have their own

complex physical processes. Machine learning treats these different applications using the same

solution procedure, by adapting features and targets for each application. This work further

demonstrates machine learning as a promising technique for PDG data analysis.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Smart Fields Consortium for the financial support that made this research possible.

Nomenclature

KM kernel matrix

K(x,z) kernel on two vectors x and z

n number of observations

N number of wells

p dimension of features

q flow rate

qw flow rate of well w

flow rate of well

t time

w well number

x(i) features for observation i

x(i)w features for observation i that comes from well w

X feature matrix

Xpred feature matrix for prediction

y target vector

y(i)w target for observation i that comes from well w

ypred target vector for prediction

parameters (coefficients) for features (x)

parameters (coefficients) for features x

tuning parameter

(x) expanded features on original features x

p pressure change

References

Earlougher, R. C. Jr. 1977. Advances in Well Test Analysis. Society of Petroleum Engineers

Monograph.

Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J. 2009. The Elements of Statistical Learning, second edition.

Springer.

Horne, R. N. 1995. Modern Well Test Analysis, second edition. Petroway.

Liu, Y. and Horne, R. N. 2012. Interpreting Pressure and Flow-Rate Data From Permanent Downhole

Gauges by Use of Data-Mining Approaches. SPE Journal, 18 (1): 69 82.

Liu, Y. and Horne, R.N. 2013a. Interpreting Pressure and Flow Rate Data from Permanent Downhole

Gauges Using Convolution-Kernel-Based Data Mining Approaches. Presented at the SPE Western

Regional & AAPG Pacific Section Meeting 2013 Joint Technical Conference, Monterey, Cali-

fornia, USA, 19-25 April. SPE-165346-MS.

SPE-175059-MS 15

Liu, Y. and Horne, R.N. 2013b. Interpreting Pressure and Flow Rate Data from Permanent Downhole

Gauges with Convolution-Kernel-Based Data Mining Approaches. Presented at the SPE Annual

Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September-2 October.

SPE-166440-MS.

Nomura, M. 2006. Processing and Interpretation of Pressure Transient Data from Permanent Down-

hole Gauges. PhD thesis, Stanford University.

Ouyang, L. B. and Sawiris, R. 2003. Production and Injection Profiling: A Novel Application of

Permanent Downhole Gauges. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,

Denver, Colorado, USA, 5-8 October. SPE-84399-MS.

Shawe-Taylor, J. and Cristianini, N. 2004. Kernel Methods for Pattern Analysis. Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.

Tian, C. and Horne, R. N. 2015. Applying Machine Learning Techniques to Interpret Flow Rate,

Pressure and Temperature Data from Permanent Downhole Gauges. Presented at the SPE Western

Regional Meeting, Garden Grove, California, USA, 27-30 April. SPE-174034-MS.

- neuralnetworksHochgeladen vonsamarra25
- ResumeHochgeladen vonJay Baxter
- Thesis RakhlinHochgeladen vonNicole Marqueta
- Dillon Daudert ResumeHochgeladen vonDillon Daudert
- CoordinateGradientDescentMethodForL1RegularizedConvexMinimizationHochgeladen vongaroldf
- ML JD- MOMO.pdfHochgeladen vontensu
- Ghisi Dan - PHDThesisHochgeladen vonJoost Van Kerkhoven
- Analyst SkillsHochgeladen vonGarvit Harisinghani
- كتاب أدعية النبي .Hochgeladen vonDoaa Mohmmd
- UT Dallas Syllabus for cs6375.501.08f taught by Haim Schweitzer (haim)Hochgeladen vonUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- 5613-rc209_010d-mahoutHochgeladen vonNemo Marlin
- Pearce 2005Hochgeladen vonFabian Moss
- AisoHochgeladen vonCS & IT
- Cluster AnalysisHochgeladen vonshofi zakiyah
- Smartphone-based personalized blood glucose prediction.pdfHochgeladen vonMachine Education
- mrsp4Hochgeladen vonAejaz Aamer
- CS 391L Machine Learning Course SyllabusHochgeladen vonOm Singh
- Reliable and ExplainableHochgeladen vonteerth_brahmbhatt
- Application of statistical methods and artificial neural networks for approximating ships roll in beam wavesHochgeladen vonFederico Babich
- Harshit SatyaHochgeladen vonharshit
- Ciencia de datos y predicciónHochgeladen vonFabian Forero
- TAI92Hochgeladen vonHari Maddineni
- Jiang2014a.pdfHochgeladen vonsrikanth madaka
- Oreilly AI Driven AnalyticsHochgeladen vonMaggie Chaudhary
- exp 4 svmHochgeladen vondaksh
- Wind09acoustic.pdfHochgeladen vonNasriya Senthu
- Díaz-Méndez & García-Espejo (2014) -Hochgeladen vonRB.ARG
- 2014 KSCE Peak DischargeHochgeladen vonSantino Spahiu
- regresiHochgeladen vonNew
- Build a Neural Network in Python _ EnlightHochgeladen vonPedro Elias Romero Nieto

- Pnp Transformation Roadmap 2030Hochgeladen vonUsting Noilad
- pedagogical practiques in jazz vocal.pdfHochgeladen vonEstéfani RM
- InterAgencypublication (1)Hochgeladen vontherm000
- Management Control Systems and Strategy a Critical ReviewHochgeladen vonDimas Jatu Widiatmaja
- Logic Fuzzy 02Hochgeladen vonjamaros
- Concentration and the Acquirement of Personal MagnetismHochgeladen vonAnonymous BTyskL
- Downs 1977 the Imperative and PragmaticsHochgeladen vonNashwa Nashaat
- EMS 6th Form Prospectus 2015/2016Hochgeladen vonEnglish Martyrs School
- C. B. Muthamaa Case StudyHochgeladen vonNamrata Arora
- what types of school activities do grade 10 students prefer at mahidol university international demonstration schoolHochgeladen vonapi-385692051
- Training and Practice in Horticultural TherapyHochgeladen vonKritikou1547
- Iconization of ComputerHochgeladen vonmetin_Özer_1
- Liber MMCMXI (a Note on Genesis)Hochgeladen vonapi-3707738
- Phasing PrimerHochgeladen vonSean Griffin
- Doctor FaustusHochgeladen vonHiteshSharma
- To Tell You The Whole Truth About The Catholic Church And The BibleHochgeladen vonarulforyou
- Faith in Early Buddhism JIPHochgeladen vonvasubandhu
- Baby NamesHochgeladen vonsyamyyy
- Abigail Addams and Slave PetitionsHochgeladen vonpeter vu
- activity 9 summary pageHochgeladen vonapi-358269977
- Helping Other People With Their Problems Helps You TooHochgeladen vonpvarillas
- o Blanchard 22Hochgeladen vonyenny
- Heartbeat of Adventism-The Great Controversy Theme in the Writtings of Ellen G. WhiteHochgeladen vonAntonio Bernard
- Philosophy of DesignHochgeladen vonDaniela Medina Nieto
- How to Write an Essay PDFHochgeladen vonCarl Luna
- essay for speechHochgeladen vonapi-361102848
- AFL1501Glossary-3.pdfHochgeladen vonTeressa Govender
- HET316 L4 Gauss LawHochgeladen vonMohammed Zain
- PLC in the UAEHochgeladen vonE. Clapp
- Dying and Death in Later Anglo-Saxon Glanden - ThompsonHochgeladen vonSam Butters