RMFinder 2.0: An Improved Interactive Multi-Criteria Scenario Reduction Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents an extension of the RMFinder technique, previously proposed to identify representative models (RMs) within the decision-making process in oil fields. As there are several uncertainties associated with this decision-making process, a large number of scenarios are supposed to be analyzed, so that high-quality production strategies can be defined. Such broad analysis is often unfeasible, so techniques to automatically identify RMs are particularly relevant. The original RMFinder does not consider the individual probability of each RM, which may not be accurate when the risk curves of the problem are estimated. Therefore, a mechanism to calculate the individual probability of each RM was developed here, together with a graphical way to visualize different proposals of RMs. To automatically identify the optimal probability of each RM, this new version of RMFinder minimizes the deviation between the risk curves generated with the selected RMs and the original risk curves of the problem. The graphical approach automatically exhibits, in a single page per solution, the RM dispersion in the scatter plots, the resulting risk curves and the differences between attribute-level distributions. This helps the decision makers to visualize and compare different sets of RMs. The proposed methodology was applied to a small synthetic problem and to three reservoir models based on real-world Brazilian fields: (i) UNISIM-I-D, a benchmark case based on the Namorado field; (ii) UNISIM-II-Dβ, a benchmark case based on a highly fractured pre-salt carbonate reservoir; and (iii) ST001a, a highly heterogeneous heavy oil offshore field. The obtained sets of RMs were evaluated by experts and considered appropriate to the studied problems, being adopted as the standard models in the following steps of the decision-making process to define the production strategies under uncertainties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".