多尺度模型诊断

IF 2.1 3区 地球科学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Trond Mannseth
{"title":"多尺度模型诊断","authors":"Trond Mannseth","doi":"10.1007/s10596-024-10289-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>I consider the problem of model diagnostics, that is, the problem of criticizing a model prior to history matching by comparing data to an ensemble of simulated data based on the prior model (prior predictions). If the data are not deemed as a credible prior prediction by the model diagnostics, some settings of the model should be changed before history matching is attempted. I particularly target methodologies that are computationally feasible for large models with large amounts of data. A multiscale methodology, that can be applied to analyze differences between data and prior predictions in a scale-by-scale fashion, is proposed for this purpose. The methodology is computationally inexpensive, straightforward to apply, and can handle correlated observation errors without making approximations. The multiscale methodology is tested on a set of toy models, on two simplistic reservoir models with synthetic data, and on real data and prior predictions from the Norne field. The tests include comparisons with a previously published method (termed the Mahalanobis methodology in this paper). For the Norne case, both methodologies led to the same decisions regarding whether to accept or discard the data as a credible prior prediction. The multiscale methodology led to correct decisions for the toy models and the simplistic reservoir models. For these models, the Mahalanobis methodology either led to incorrect decisions, and/or was unstable with respect to selection of the ensemble of prior predictions.</p>","PeriodicalId":10662,"journal":{"name":"Computational Geosciences","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multiscale model diagnostics\",\"authors\":\"Trond Mannseth\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10596-024-10289-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>I consider the problem of model diagnostics, that is, the problem of criticizing a model prior to history matching by comparing data to an ensemble of simulated data based on the prior model (prior predictions). If the data are not deemed as a credible prior prediction by the model diagnostics, some settings of the model should be changed before history matching is attempted. I particularly target methodologies that are computationally feasible for large models with large amounts of data. A multiscale methodology, that can be applied to analyze differences between data and prior predictions in a scale-by-scale fashion, is proposed for this purpose. The methodology is computationally inexpensive, straightforward to apply, and can handle correlated observation errors without making approximations. The multiscale methodology is tested on a set of toy models, on two simplistic reservoir models with synthetic data, and on real data and prior predictions from the Norne field. The tests include comparisons with a previously published method (termed the Mahalanobis methodology in this paper). For the Norne case, both methodologies led to the same decisions regarding whether to accept or discard the data as a credible prior prediction. The multiscale methodology led to correct decisions for the toy models and the simplistic reservoir models. For these models, the Mahalanobis methodology either led to incorrect decisions, and/or was unstable with respect to selection of the ensemble of prior predictions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computational Geosciences\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computational Geosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-024-10289-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computational Geosciences","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-024-10289-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我考虑的是模型诊断问题,即在历史匹配之前,通过将数据与基于先验模型(先验预测)的模拟数据集合进行比较,对模型进行批评的问题。如果模型诊断认为数据不是可信的先验预测,那么在尝试历史匹配之前,就应该改变模型的某些设置。我的目标尤其是针对具有大量数据的大型模型的可行计算方法。为此,我提出了一种多尺度方法,可以逐个尺度分析数据与先验预测之间的差异。该方法计算成本低廉,应用简便,可处理相关的观测误差,无需进行近似。多尺度方法在一组玩具模型、两个带有合成数据的简单储层模型以及 Norne 油田的真实数据和先验预测上进行了测试。测试包括与之前发布的一种方法(本文称为 Mahalanobis 方法)进行比较。在诺恩案例中,两种方法在接受或放弃数据作为可信的先验预测方面做出了相同的决定。多尺度方法对玩具模型和简单储层模型做出了正确的决定。对于这些模型,Mahalanobis 方法要么导致错误的决策,要么在选择先验预测集合方面不稳定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multiscale model diagnostics

I consider the problem of model diagnostics, that is, the problem of criticizing a model prior to history matching by comparing data to an ensemble of simulated data based on the prior model (prior predictions). If the data are not deemed as a credible prior prediction by the model diagnostics, some settings of the model should be changed before history matching is attempted. I particularly target methodologies that are computationally feasible for large models with large amounts of data. A multiscale methodology, that can be applied to analyze differences between data and prior predictions in a scale-by-scale fashion, is proposed for this purpose. The methodology is computationally inexpensive, straightforward to apply, and can handle correlated observation errors without making approximations. The multiscale methodology is tested on a set of toy models, on two simplistic reservoir models with synthetic data, and on real data and prior predictions from the Norne field. The tests include comparisons with a previously published method (termed the Mahalanobis methodology in this paper). For the Norne case, both methodologies led to the same decisions regarding whether to accept or discard the data as a credible prior prediction. The multiscale methodology led to correct decisions for the toy models and the simplistic reservoir models. For these models, the Mahalanobis methodology either led to incorrect decisions, and/or was unstable with respect to selection of the ensemble of prior predictions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Computational Geosciences
Computational Geosciences 地学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
63
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Computational Geosciences publishes high quality papers on mathematical modeling, simulation, numerical analysis, and other computational aspects of the geosciences. In particular the journal is focused on advanced numerical methods for the simulation of subsurface flow and transport, and associated aspects such as discretization, gridding, upscaling, optimization, data assimilation, uncertainty assessment, and high performance parallel and grid computing. Papers treating similar topics but with applications to other fields in the geosciences, such as geomechanics, geophysics, oceanography, or meteorology, will also be considered. The journal provides a platform for interaction and multidisciplinary collaboration among diverse scientific groups, from both academia and industry, which share an interest in developing mathematical models and efficient algorithms for solving them, such as mathematicians, engineers, chemists, physicists, and geoscientists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信