Table 2. Comparison of the Used Data and Accuracy for the Previous and the Proposed LSTM Models.

				input parameters
no.	model	location	no. of data points	Bob (bbl/STB)	Rs (SCF/STB)	γg	API (°API)	Tf (°F)	average absolute error %	standard deviation
1	Standing7	California USA	105		√	√	√	√
2	Lasater8	Canada West and Mid-cont U.S. and SA	158		√	√	√	√
3	Glaso9	North Sea	41		√	√	√	√		6.98
4	Vazquez and Beggs10	Worldwide	6004		√	√	√	√
5	Al-Marhoun11	Middle East	160		√	√	√	√	3.66	4.536
6	Kartoatmodjo and Schmit12	Worldwide	5392		√	√	√	√	20.17
7	Dokla and Osman13	UAE	51		√	√	√	√	7.61	10.378
8	Petrosky and Farshed14	Gulf of Mexico	90		√	√	√	√	3.28	2.56
9	Macary and El-Batanoney15	Gulf of Suez	90		√	√	√	√	7.04
10	Omar and Todd16	Malaysia	93	√	√	√	√	√	7.17	9.54
11	De Ghetto et al.17	Mediterranean Basin, Africa, Persian Gulf, and the North Sea	195		√	√	√	√	12.8	10
12	Frashad et al.18	Colombia	43		√	√	√	√		37.02
13	Almehaideb19	UAE	62	√	√	√	√	√	4.997	6.56
14	Hanafy et al.20	Egypt	90		√
15	Velarde et al.2	USA	728		√	√	√	√	11.7
16	Al-Shammasi22	Worldwide	1709		√	√	√	√	17.849	17.16
17	Dindoruk and Christman23	Gulf of Mexico	100		√	√	√	√	5.7	7.51
18	Mehran et al.24	Iran	387		√	√	√	√
19	Bolodazadeh et al.25	Iran	166		√	√	√	√
20	Hemati and Kharrat27	Iran	287	√	√	√	√	√	3.71	4.06
21	Mazandarani and Asghari28	Iran	55		√	√	√	√	0.51
22	Khamechi et al.29	Iran	106		√	√	√	√		0.061
23	Arabloo et al.6	Worldwide	756		√	√	√	√	18.9
24	Patil et al.31	Niger Delta	23		√	√	√	√
25	Gomaa32	Middle East	441		√	√	√	√	8.12	10.69
26	Sharrad and Abd-Alrahman34	Libya	35		√	√	√	√	8.7
27	Tariq et al.37	Worldwide	760		√	√	√	√	0.9358
28	proposed LSTM	Worldwide	760		√	√	√	√	8.422	0.088