MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888125815 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201802229

Performance Assessment of Ensemble Kalman Filter and Markov Chain Monte Carlo under Forecast Model Uncertainty

2018· article· en· W2888125815 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. M. Patel, Tarang Jain, Japan Trivedi, J. Guevara

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnsemble Kalman filterMarkov chain Monte CarloUncertainty quantificationPolynomial chaosData assimilationMathematical optimizationMonte Carlo methodApplied mathematicsComputer scienceKalman filterAlgorithmMathematicsGaussianExtended Kalman filterStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) are popular methods to obtain the posterior distribution of unknown parameters in the reservoir model. However, millions of simulation runs may be required in MCMC for accurate sampling of posterior as subsurface flow problems are highly nonlinear and non-Gaussian. Similarly, EnKF formulated on the basis of linear and Gaussian assumptions may also require a large number of realizations to correctly map the solution space of the unknown model parameters, ultimately resulting in the high computational cost. Data-driven meta/surrogate/proxy models provide an alternative solution to alleviate the issue of high computational cost. Since these models are not as accurate as numerical solutions of partial differential equations (PDE), their implementation may add an uncertainty in the forecast model. In literature, the effect of uncertainty in forecast model on data assimilation is not well studied, especially with field-scale reservoir models. In this work, we propose the robust assisted history matching workflow using polynomial chaos expansion (PCE) based forecast model. Proposed forecast model relies on reducing parameter space using Karhunen–Loeve (KL) expansion which preserves the two-point statistics of the field. Random variables from KL expansion and orthogonal polynomials corresponding to the prior probability density function (pdf) form the set of input parameters in PCE. Further, non-intrusive probabilistic collocation method (PCM) is used to compute PCE coefficients. PCE forecast model is then used in EnKF and MCMC to calculate the likelihood of the samples in place of high fidelity full physics simulation runs. A case study is performed using a 3D field scale model of a reservoir located near Fort McMurray in northern Alberta, Canada. Performance of EnKF and MCMC are assessed under forecast model uncertainty using rigorous qualitative and quantitative analysis and posterior distribution characterization. Results clearly depict that, although EnKF provided reliable mean and variance estimates of model parameters, MCMC outperformed the former even under the uncertainty associated with PCE metamodel. Inaccurate initial assumptions of model parameters were successfully handled by MCMC, although, with a longer burn-in period. Furthermore, characterization of posterior demonstrated reduced uncertainty in the estimation of model parameters using MCMC as compared to EnKF. Practical implications of the proposed approach and performance assessment under forecast model uncertainty will be consequential in designing accurate and computationally efficient reservoir characterization and optimization workflows and hence, improved decision-making in reservoir management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedingsSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207