{"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}
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.
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.